I received an email yesterday that I found frustrating. It came from the YMCA, more commonly referred to as the Y, the primary gym where I roll. (Right now I pay $36/month which I’m completely fine with). The email explained that they will be adopting a new pricing schedule, but as a current member I’ll be grandfathered in (unless I benefit from the new rates and choose to switch). By adopting this new pricing guide, the Y is hoping to “ensure that everyone is welcome at the Y and has the opportunity to be healthy, confident, and connected.”
You may be reading this and thinking: “so you have a chance to reduce your dues, this organization seems to be “doing good,” so what’s the problem?” Well after researching the matter further (to see if I qualified for lower rates) I found that the new pricing is based on 2 things:
1. The number of adults/children in your household
2. Your annual household income
I understand the idea of a “wealthy” individual paying more in taxes compared to a “disadvantaged” individual, but should this theology be shifting to all aspects of life now? If I go to a restaurant wearing a shirt and tie, am I going to be asked to pay more for my cheeseburger than the guy wearing an Ed Hardy tee? I better not!!
So where will the line be drawn? If food is off the table, then what’s on it? Apparently gym memberships…
Here are the details:
Membership rates are adjusted for households making $0 – $80,000.
2 Adults – Income $15000 – $19999 = $38
2 Adults – Income $40000 – $49999 = $64
2 Adults – Income $80000+ = $85
With the above example, for each $10000 of income you receive (by working hard) you are required to pay an additional $5-10/month. The only solution I can think of is to move in with 4 other individuals, preferably unemployed.
Do you think this is “fair” to charge those with less income a lower premium?
Is this “unfair” to charge two individuals a different price for the same good/service?