Racism, anger and why dual pricing makes sense to Thai people

[Shawn0000]

53 minutes ago, Happy Grumpy said:

They'd do it to the rich Thais too if they could.

 

Unfortunately they can't as they know they'd be beaten to death and the rich Thai that did it would never be charged. 

 

they can do it to farang as farang can't do anything about it other than get all pissy. 

 

You must wet your little panties every time you go to 7-11.

[wakeupplease]

Racist or Racialism

best way to solve this is change the English meaning of the word, in a few years time we will all have to learn thai

 

A few on here will now be happy

 

Sweet Dreams

[Fairynuff]

8 hours ago, digibum said:

 

In the words of Donald Trump:   "Wrong!"

 

The official tourist numbers traditionally indicate the number of foreign arrivals at boarders.  So, no, local Thais would not impact those numbers.  

 

TAT has numbers for both foreign and domestic tourism.  

 

And foreign arrivals has been increasing.  However, they're mostly Chinese and Indians as Thailand has shifted towards a more volume tourism model.  

 

So, with the stuff that is just blatantly false out of the way, how many farang tourists do you think know they are getting dual pricing?  Given that most first time tourists can't read Thai, I'm guessing that number is very low.  

 

But more importantly, aren't there a whole plethora of other bad experiences that tourists have that would be far more likely to keep them from returning?  Are you really expecting people to believe that some poor Italian gets home after two weeks in Thailand and finds out on the internet that Thais only pay 40 baht at the Grand Palace and he paid 400 baht and he's like, "NEVER AGAIN!!!!  I will never go back to Thailand"?  

 

Chances are, he spent a good chunk of his trip in a drunken haze with brief memories of girls he met and some vague recollection of getting into a tuk-tuk and buying $1500 worth of gems that turned out to be worthless.  

 

And even that might not keep him from coming back :-)

 

Point being is that Thailand rips people off at every turn.  There's a half decent chance you can't make it from the airport to your hotel without getting ripped off by the taxi driver.  

 

Why would dual pricing be the thing that pushes people over the edge to never return?  

 

The people that get angry about dual pricing almost always seem to be expats and broke frequent visitors.  

 

 

Your post is based on your opinions and assumptions, not on facts or reality

[Fairynuff]

6 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

Look at it from the other side.

Let's say you are a Thai vendor ho spends the whole day out in the hot sun waiting for a customer

A farang refuses to give you an extra 20 baht which he or she then uses that 20 baht to buy an ice cream bar which he or she doen;t finish but throws away.

i'm not saying it is fair, but if that was you, how would you feel?

Walk a mile in my shoes before you criticise me.

 

I'd think I might have been better off had I not been greedy. If I hadn't tried to cheat the foreigner I might have been able to buy an mbrella to shade me from the hot sun

[dictater]

Dual pricing will never go away in Asia, especially since so many of the governments duel price. National Parks, trains, border passes. 

[dictater]

On the other side, a local Thai coconut ice cream vendor that I buy from maybe once a week for ten baht insisted the other day that I should pay only 5 baht since I have been a long time customer. I refused because it was absurd, and asked her how many hours does she walk with her cart selling ice cream a day? In the end she accepted my entire ten baht payment. 

[digibum]

4 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

 

If it was purely an economic misconception that farangs have more money why does the Thai driving the brand new Mercedes pay less than the farang tourist when entering Khao Kheow or Safari World?

 

No, your post is an example of citing the outlier case and presenting it as common.  How many rich Thais are there compared to poor Thai people?  

 

 

[digibum]

1 hour ago, Fairynuff said:

Your post is based on your opinions and assumptions, not on facts or reality

 

Well thank you for adding your thoughts and analysis.  I, and I think everyone here on TV, are significantly better informed on this topic based on your contribution.  

 

 

[digibum]

1 hour ago, Fairynuff said:

I'd think I might have been better off had I not been greedy. If I hadn't tried to cheat the foreigner I might have been able to buy an mbrella to shade me from the hot sun

 

Your post is based on your opinions and assumptions, not on facts or reality

[digibum]

5 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

You think it is still racist to charge tourists less in Japan and Switzerland?  Why, it has nothing to do with race, much like the case of Thailand, it is all about nationality.

 

Shawn0000, I think we're beating our heads against the wall on this one.  People don't seem to be able to comprehend that something can be discriminatory (totally fine legally) and not be racist/sexist (not cool).  They are especially confused as it pertains to nationality because in their minds, there are only Thais and white people (notice how many refuse to acknowledge how other Asians are being discriminated against).  In their minds, if a white person is charged more, it's racist against white people even if the Cambodian standing behind them is charged the same price as they are.  As long as they aren't being offered the Thai price, it's racist (so they claim).  

 

Discrimination has a negative connotation (some might argue rightfully due to how often the word has been associated with discrimination based on race in the past) but discrimination itself is not a particularly negative thing.  

 

Ladies Night promotions discriminate.  They are perfectly legal and men typically ultimately benefit due to the increase in women drawn to such promotions, but, technically, it's discrimination.  

 

Senior's Discounts are similarly discriminatory as they offer a benefit based on age.  Yet nobody complains about such promotions because, hey, who want's to be against old people?  

 

So, okay then, since facts, logic, and an understanding of the term racist, escape many of those in this thread . . . Thais are racist and dual pricing is racist.  What are the whiners going to do now? 

 

Boo hoo.  Grow a pair and deal with it or go somewhere else.  Thais aren't going to change that drastically in my lifetime (and given the cranky nature of many of TV's posters, certainly not in their lifetime). 

 

Yes, the land of cheap living and cheap women has some flaws.  Whaaaaa. 

 

[Torrens54]

Racism is alive and rife in Thailand. If the same thing happened to THAIS in European Countries, Thailand would Scream to the U.N. !

[digibum]

8 hours ago, ezrider62 said:

 

great job! One gold star for you!

 

Yes, the only way that story gets any better is if the Thai merchant beat the snot out of him with a stick and when the police showed up he told him that the farang had stole the belt since he had never agreed on the 100 baht price.  And legally, the Thai merchant would be 100% right.  He said the price was 200, the farang handed the man 100 and walked off.  That's theft.  

 

You don't know what arrangement the previous customer had.  He could have purchased 10,000 baht worth of stuff the day before so the shop owner was giving him a deal.   Maybe that guy is his kid's school teacher and he wants to offer him the item at cost.  He has no idea whatsoever why the vendor gave the other guy a better price but he's taken upon himself to essentially steal the item by declaring his own price.  

 

I wonder how that would work back in Farangland.  You walk into a shop, someone ahead of you is buying the same item as you and uses a coupon.  Your turn to pay and you give the same amount to the shop owner as the person ahead of you and then just walk out.  Zero chance you aren't getting arrested.  

 

It boggles the mind that someone would think this is acceptable behavior.  And the irony in it is that by assuming that shoving a 100 baht note in the vendor's hand and deeming that he should take it, he is the one demonstrating the racism.  He feels that his logic and definition of fairness is superior because that's the way he thinks things should be done.  He would never pull that stunt back home else he find himself strangled with said belt or locked up for theft.  

 

Bro, if you can't pay the extra 100 baht for the belt and you need to literally steal from Thai merchants, GO HOME!!!!  Don't try make stealing from Thai merchants sound noble.  

 

@overherebc

 

[onthesoi]

14 minutes ago, Torrens54 said:

Racism is alive and rife in Thailand. If the same thing happened to THAIS in European Countries, Thailand would Scream to the U.N. !

 

So when Thais rock up to airports in Europe do they automatically get 30 day visas on arrival?

 

& do they scream to the UN about the answer you're about to give?

[anotheruser]

My take on it is that perhaps in places like national parks a surcharge of 400% or more might be off  the mark. However at markets without fixed prices you can not really say it is dual pricing because there is no affixed price to be able to quantify such a statement. 

 

In the USA we charge people from out of town more to use state parks and also universities. This is normal. We don't charge ten times as much and it isn't based upon nationality, it is based upon residency. My Japanese friend had to shell out extra to attend school in the USA for the first 6 months or year or so. 

 

I think anybody with a TV handle should be charged more for the amount of inane complaints though lol. 

 

There is no such thing as dual pricing in markets where there is no such thing as a fixed price. Do people get better deals than others? Yes, of course, sure that is a fact of life. Even in the west and the most developed countries in the world places exist where prices are not fixed. If you go to an auction for example you might pay 10 times what somebody else would.

 

Thailand is basically admitting it is a third world country by making the fees so high in state sanctioned places. I couldn't imagine the Grand Canyon making foreigners pay 10 times the amount. 

 

The sellers that operate independently can adjust prices and charge as much or little as they want to. It would be like if you go to a second hand car lot in the USA and assume everybody gets the same deal. That is simply insane. 

[digibum]

14 minutes ago, Torrens54 said:

Racism is alive and rife in Thailand. If the same thing happened to THAIS in European Countries, Thailand would Scream to the U.N. !

 

And?  

 

Your little avatar says you live in Chiang Mai.  

 

So, either you aren't as bothered by the racism as you pretend to be or it's not as bad as you pretend it is.  Otherwise, it would seem pretty idiotic to move half way around the world seeking to be discriminated against.  

 

Pick one.  

 

[onthesoi]

2 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

My take on it is that perhaps in places like national parks a surcharge of 400% or more might be off  the mark.

 

 

Technically, the Thai people are the owners( by proxy ) of the national park, so it could be asked why they have to pay the same as wealthy foreigners?

 

At the end of the day it's their country so they make the rules ...trying to apply falang cultural norms to Asia is invalid by default!

[Shiver]

5 hours ago, smotherb said:

Well, if they open their eyes they will probably be dual-priced wherever else they go for vacation. Two- or even multi-tier pricing is common throughout the developing world.  It seems locals the world over think that way, "Why should the rich foreigner not pay extra for his goods?"

 

Not saying I agree with the reasoning, but I'm fairly convinced that you're bang on the money with your assessment.

[anotheruser]

3 minutes ago, onthesoi said:

 

Technically, the Thai people are the owners( by proxy ) of the national park, so it could be asked why they have to pay the same as wealthy foreigners?

 

At the end of the day it's their country so they make the rules ...trying to apply falang cultural norms to Asia is invalid by default!

 

Okay then as Thais are the custodians and stewards they could try not to destroy the places they are supposed to protect. Because at least where i am from that's what national park and state fees are based upon. 

 

thats is why somebody from out of town pays a bit more and has a reasonable expectation that the trees won't be cut down, the roads and waterfalls won't be riddled with litter and they are generally entering something that is treated like a gem and protected. 

 

i guess we have differences in opinions on this.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by anotheruser

[digibum]

2 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

My take on it is that perhaps in places like national parks a surcharge of 400% or more might be off  the mark. However at markets without fixed prices you can not really say it is dual pricing because there is no affixed price to be able to quantify such a statement. 

 

In the USA we charge people from out of town more to use state parks and also universities. This is normal. We don't charge ten times as much and it isn't based upon nationality, it is based upon residency. My Japanese friend had to shell out extra to attend school in the USA for the first 6 months or year or so. 

 

I think anybody with a TV handle should be charged more for the amount of inane complaints though lol. 

 

There is no such thing as dual pricing in markets where there is no such thing as a fixed price. Do people get better deals than others? Yes, of course, sure that is a fact of life. Even in the west and the most developed countries in the world places exist where prices are not fixed. If you go to an auction for example you might pay 10 times what somebody else would.

 

Thailand is basically admitting it is a third world country by making the fees so high in state sanctioned places. I couldn't imagine the Grand Canyon making foreigners pay 10 times the amount. 

 

The sellers that operate independently can adjust prices and charge as much or little as they want to. It would be like if you go to a second hand car lot in the USA and assume everybody gets the same deal. That is simply insane. 

 

So what is a legally acceptable markup on national parks?  

 

I just think it's curious that you're terming it in terms of the percentage difference when, dude, it's a little over $10 USD.  That's what you would get charged in the US and less than you might pay in Europe.  

 

And would it make any difference if being able to show a Thai ID card got you in for free?  

 

And why do people have no problem with seniors and students getting discounts on things when those seniors and students could have more money than a tourist?  

 

Bottom line is either 400 baht is a price that you deem reasonable for entrance or it isn't.  What other people pay should be of zero concern to you.  

 

So many farangs seem to be so fixated on what they pay vs what Thais pay regardless of whether what they pay is a fair price or not.  

 

And how does one determine what is a fair price?  Ask an economist but they generally agree that it's a price at which two people agree to exchange goods/services.  

 

Since I've never heard of a true tourist complain that 400 baht is too much to pay to enter a national park in Thailand it seems that 400 baht is a fair price.  What makes the price unacceptable to so many deadbeats is they see Thais paying less.  If you removed the Thai price, 400 baht would suddenly become reasonable but it would disenfranchise many of the Thai people who want to enjoy their own country.  But who cares about them.  Just as long as some stingy farang can feel that he's not being cheated.  

 

[digibum]

3 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

Okay then as Thais are the custodians and stewards they could try not to destroy the places they are supposed to protect. Because at least where i am from that's what national park and state fees are based upon. 

 

thats is why somebody from out of town pays a bit more and has a reasonable expectation that the trees won't be cut down, the roads and waterfalls won't be riddled with litter and they are generally entering something that is treated like a gem and protected. 

 

i guess we have differences in opinions on this.

 

 

 

Whether or not they destroy or not destroy is absolutely none of your business.  It's their land.  

 

If they destroy it to the point that you no longer are willing to pay to visit, then they've only shot themselves in the foot.  

 

Attempting to justify why you shouldn't pay more than Thais based on your expectations of how they should treat their own property is condescending and racist.  

 

Jebus, Joseph, and Hairy, can you imagine if a bunch of Chinese showed up in your country and told you how to take care of your national parks?  Amazing!!!!!!!

 

[anotheruser]

Actually foreigners should get a discount because most of us do not litter the places we visit. It takes one foreigner's money to simply undo the damage that Thai people do through littering and ignorance. foreigners tend to understand the concept of leave no trace so we simply subsidize the complete disregard of the Thai stewards. 

 

If it was based upon environmental impact the Thai people would lose.

[AlexRich]

16 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

Yeah, you probably don't, I would though because I appreciate the natural world, no way would I miss out on the best sights in Thailand for some half baked principle.

 

The best sights in Thailand? That's debatable ... there are more sights in Thailand than anyone has the time to see, so I'm happy to miss those one's where the foreigner is ripped off. Thailand is not the only country worth visiting ... so the number of sights worth seeing can't be covered in a lifetime. I don't feel that I'm missing out.

 

[onthesoi]

18 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

Okay then as Thais are the custodians and stewards they could try not to destroy the places they are supposed to protect. Because at least where i am from that's what national park and state fees are based upon.

 

 

Did you read all of my previous post?

[anotheruser]

10 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

Whether or not they destroy or not destroy is absolutely none of your business.  It's their land.  

 

If they destroy it to the point that you no longer are willing to pay to visit, then they've only shot themselves in the foot.  

 

Attempting to justify why you shouldn't pay more than Thais based on your expectations of how they should treat their own property is condescending and racist.  

 

Jebus, Joseph, and Hairy, can you imagine if a bunch of Chinese showed up in your country and told you how to take care of your national parks?  Amazing!!!!!!!

 

 

It is my business. You can not charge me ten times the cost to enter a park when you yourself are the one's destroying the place. When I pay my park fees to come inside what it is used for very much becomes my business.  At least in a place where park fees are explained to visitors.

[onthesoi]

way too much boo hoo in this thread

[anotheruser]

Just now, onthesoi said:

 

Did you read all of my previous post?

 

do park officials charge multiple times the going rate to rape the forest and develop resorts that encroach upon parks? Okay I am willing to pay ten times the going rate even though I don't treat a water fall like a trash can. So I can demand to see where this sort of funding goes to. 

 

[anotheruser]

Just now, onthesoi said:

way too much boo hoo in this thread

 

for the money i pay they should let me cut the trees down myself.

[anotheruser]

So what am i paying for? To line some park officials pockets? So he can continue his mission to deforest the park that my money is supposedly levied to protect? You have to be joking. If you ever get to a national park in the USA you can request to see where revenue is generated. 

 

I would have no problem paying national park fees but what you are doing is supporting the destruction of the park itself in Thailand. There isn't any emphasis upon preservation and it isn't the fees themselves that make it a farce, it is the pretense of conservation that is the joke. 

 

I would like to see much more transparency if i am paying that sort of money. Not some mealy mouthed apology, that is utterly inexcusable. All national parks and state parks are held accountable where I am from.

 

Next time I visit Yellowstone I expect the conditions to be better, this can't be said of Samet.  Paying people that have no other intention of destroying the park they protect is wrong and how many multiples of wrong it is doesn't matter.

[digibum]

21 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

It is my business. You can not charge me ten times the cost to enter a park when you yourself are the one's destroying the place. When I pay my park fees to come inside what it is used for very much becomes my business.  At least in a place where park fees are explained to visitors.

 

Actually, they can charge you anything they want.    

 

The only option you have is to pay or not to pay.  

 

You don't have any right to tell them how to run their public lands.  If they shoot themselves in the foot, they shoot themselves in the foot. 

 

[anotheruser]

Just now, digibum said:

 

Actually, they can charge you anything they want.    

 

The only option you have is to pay or not to pay.  

 

You don't have any right to tell them how to run their public lands.  If they shoot themselves in the foot, they shoot themselves in the foot. 

 

 

I have the right to say what I want, it is called public input. They can take it anyway they want to.