In my most recent posting, I referred to a policy purported to exist by Epicenter Theater in Uptown Charlotte which went unenforced. Today my wife called the theater to voice her complaint a second time and received what appears to be a scripted response to this complaint: "Was the child disruptive?" and "It's a kids' movie." Both responses are irrelevant to the question at hand: Why is the policy clearly stated on the website going unenforced and why are patrons who complain about the lack of enforcement have the complaint fall upon deaf ears? What recourse have we, as an adult couple without children, to enjoy a night out without having to worry about being disturbed by potentially disruptive children? Why do adults without children pay the costs (in terms of taxes) for the education and welfare of children yet have no right to be away from them when we specifically choose venues having policies of "Over 21 After 7:00" (see screen shot below) and pay premium prices to avoid this potential encroachment?
As I have stated in a previous post, my wife and I do not 'hate' children, yet we attempt to reserve the right to be in their company when we choose. A Pittsburgh area restaurant (McDain's) recently adopted a policy of not admitting children under 6 years of age at any time. While listening to local talk radio on this topic recently, the restaurant had feared they would lose some business over the policy and the fallout that may ensue by outraged parents feeling their children's civil rights were being violated. As I recall, not only has the policy made the establishment more adult friendly (as it purports itself to be), it has seen an increase in business. (See http://www.sportsinferno.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90248); Note: This URL is a discussion board but shows at its head the policy enacted by the establishment).
I recall the mid-1970's when The Lake Apartments (now Sailboat Bay) on Albemarle Road were built as an adult-only apartment community. I remember this because my sister moved in there after graduation from college and I was told that I was only allowed to visit her when my parents took me and I was not allowed on the grounds after 7:00 pm. Whether or not this is fact or just what I was told to keep 'out of my sister's hair,' I do not know, but it was effective enough to keep me away as a 9-year old kid.
Procreation is, and should remain, a fundamental right of any adult in our society. However, this right should not impart any rights beyond procreation. That is, once a adult elects to become a parent, any needs of the child should be provided by the parent(s). Our society has (correctly, I believe) deemed that all children should receive some degree of education (quality notwithstanding, obviously) and inoculations against communicable and / or deadly diseases. However, many adults whom become parents believe that they are imparted with the right to impose their children upon others in society be it in restaurants, theaters, shopping malls and the like. The belief of parents that they have the right to impose their children upon others in society creates a fundamental negative externality (the imposition of a cost on a third party while the third party receives no benefit) upon those whom do not wish to be engaged by minors.
From a purely economic standpoint, lower-income adults have a lower opportunity cost for becoming parents than do higher-income adults. That is, should a child require 25 hours of supervision per week (a very conservative estimate), the lower-income parent forgoes less in unearned potential income than a higher-income parent (if you're babysitting, you cannot be devoting your full attention to working). Simple math bears this out: If you make $10 per hour and your child requires 25 hours of supervision per week, you must forgo $250 in potential income while a person making $40 per hour would have to forgo $1000 in potential income. Moreover, higher-income persons pay a greater proportion of their income in taxes, part of which goes to programs specifically aimed at minors. Additionally, adults with children are allowed to claim a deduction on their taxes for having dependents while adults without children receive no tax breaks for not imposing the costs of additional minors on a society with an already strained and outdated economic infrastructure.
While the jury is still out after China's 25 years of "One Child" policy (see http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr051833), it is easy to understand the rationale behind it: fewer minors impose a smaller cost on society at large for their care.
Returning to the topic at hand, The Epicenter Theater in Uptown Charlotte refused to issue a refund for the $33.00 spent on tickets to a screening of a movie that promoted as being during the "over 21" hours of business and (according to my wife) has stated that they may very well change their website. In case you missed it from the outset, "Over 21 After 7:00" is a myth. Do Not Pay Premium Prices To Establishments That Refuse To Enforce Their Own Policies Specifically Designed To Encourage Adult Patronage. At the very least, it is a violation of the Truth In Advertising law; at worst, it is FRAUD.
No comments:
Post a Comment