Showing posts with label guilt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guilt. Show all posts

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Just the Tip

Quoth @interfluidity: "perhaps there are some domains where payment itself is a consumption good."

Context here.

Would you tip an android? How about a perfectly convincing one? Why do you tip?


Unless, of course, you don't tip.

Some possibilities:
  1. You appreciate good service and wish to encourage more.
  2. It's expected. The costs of being a Mr. Pink are greater than the value of the money you'd pony up.
  3. You are genuinely magnanimous. You wish to redistribute your wealth to the relatively poor service workers you encounter.
  4. You've worked service jobs in the past and you know how difficult they can be compared to the scale pay.
  5. You want to flirt with the waitress (if this has ever worked for you, let me know in the comments, as I'm still trying to prove to Meat Mountain Mungowitz that unicorns do exist).
  6. You want to signal to other diners your fitness as a potential mate and to reduce the relative status of less-generous tippers.
There are many ways to play status games. Conspicuous tipping is one. Does that mean it is euvoluntary? For Buscemi up there, he endured the scorn of his fellows for being a cheapskate (and I suspect that #2 is one of the reasons why the practice is so durable). And #4 suggests that the institutional equilibrium for tip recipients isn't euvoluntary (tbf, several states have converted server positions to regular-scale jobs subject to ordinary minimum wage requirements, though that doesn't seem to have done much to dent the practice of tipping in those states, afaik).

When robots take over service jobs, how quickly will the practice of tipping disappear? What mix of #1-6 will result in waifu-style animatronic servants, and which will result in hyper-efficient flying spider-appendage machines? Which sort of world do you wish to live in?

When the robots do start to take over, it's hard to tell from afar if folks will be interested in putting lots of resources into tip-generating features. And it's also hard to tell if that would be a bad thing. Prices convey information after all, and if people are willing to throw a few extra bucks at Boob-bot 5000 while leaving the Mantisblimp's jar empty, that suggests that form matters in a very real economic sense.

I don't know about you guys, but I can't wait to see what happens.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The Horrible Truth of Nien Nunb

For those of you too young or insufficiently interested in the minutae of Star Wars trivia to recall, Nien Nunb was the Sullustan "co"-pilot who, together with Lando Calrissian, successfully detonated the power plant at the center of the second Death Star orbiting the forest moon of Endor. This assault marked the demise of both Emperor Palpatine and the last remaining Sith apprentice, Darth Vader.

Astute viewers will notice that while aboard the Millennium Falcon, Lando occupied the seat typically filled by Han Solo, and the froglike Nunb took Chewbacca's seat. Even more astute viewers will note that nearly every scene in the previous movies that required both adept piloting (the escape from the first Death Star or the flight from Hoth eg) and assistance elsewhere aboard the Falcon, Chewie kept his post, while Han went off to man the turrets or flirt with Leia or whatever. Han may have had legal title over the Falcon, but Chewbacca was its main pilot. This is not unlike our own terrestrial seagoing vessels, where the owner of the ship, the captain of the vessel, and the pilot are seldom the same person. If Nien Nunb was actually in the pilot's chair, it was he who deserves the lion's share of credit for the victory at Endor.

Despite this obvious-in-retrospect conclusion, Nunb is virtually unknown to casual fans. I had to wait until the action figure came out to learn his name, and it was only because of the extended universe novels that I remembered it with any regularity. How could this happen? Why do we so cavalierly forget one of the most important figures of the Rebellion?

The answer is a little complicated, so bear with me. On Nien Nunb's homeworld of Sullust, his distant ancestors civilized themselves in low-lying swamplands on one of the larger continents. This continent was a dangerous place, chock full of toothy predators and geological hazards. Proto-Sullustans competed with a number of similar Anurials for the same sorts of swamp resources. What set Nunb's ancestors apart from the other contenders for intellectual advancement was an idiosyncratic propensity to cooperate. This propensity arose almost by accident when a group of medium-status individuals found that by banding together to kill individually powerful males one at a time, they were able to avoid domination and capture a larger share of the community wealth. Of course, they were still social animals, and the Anurials clever enough to band together were also clever enough to exclude the very low-status members, obliging them to accept either charity or a BATNA of autarky (you get what you can make with your own two hands). Nota bene, in order for coalition members to avoid becoming the next assassination target, proto-Sullustans got very good at loudly championing equality for all, while surreptitiously hoarding wealth and excluding the untouchables.

Ancient proper Sullustans organized themselves by loosely-hierarchical clans. Members were more or less equal, with a clan head (usually an elder) to give direction where needed. But the habits of their Anurial ancestors was already baked into their DNA, so to speak, and they carried with them a strong skepticism of overt domination, or of bragging, or other displays of individualism. It was only with the development of stable farming that they began to deepen hierarchy and re-assert a measure of dominion.

Unfortunately for the military accolades owed to Nunb himself, re-emergent hierarchy was arrested by the arrival of hyperspace-capable vessels. Sullustans had all the mental faculties required for spacefaring, so it was simply a matter of a couple generations' training to get them serving aboard freight vessels and eventually as the chief pilot responsible for the fall of the Empire.

And so we have Nunb, heir to a culture that had never provided much in the way of reward for exceptional courage, and had indeed gone out of its way to punish overt displays of dominance. And as heir to this culture, he readily joined with Mon Mothma's fleet to overthrow the most domineering regime in the entire galaxy: Palpatine's Empire. But he also had flowing through his cold veins just enough contempt for lower-status creatures that he couldn't much care about the flaming debris that cascaded down onto the surface of Endor. Ewoks barely register as sapient, their ultimate sacrifice so that the galaxy can be rid of a hated sovereign was more than worth it. After all, it would have been a heck of a hassle to wrest control of the Death Star (and the rebel fleet had no way of knowing that Vader had killed Palpatine anyway) and move it out of Endor's gravity well. Right?

Nunb was in thrall to his biological and cultural programming. He could have no more sought recognition for his vital role in overthrowing the Empire than our own hotheaded champions of "justice" and "fairness" could have kept themselves from frothing up a lather over the unprofessional sartorial choices of a European rocket scientist who just helped land a tiny probe on a distant comet. Sullustans, much like we humans, are social creatures first and foremost. The tiny little triggers in our heads itch to be pulled, and they're tuned not for unfathomable greatness in achievement, but to slight cues of dominance. It is only by mastery of the Force can anyone hope to Jedi their way out of the swamps and savannas whence we emerged.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Retirement

If you'll permit me to channel the latest econ-themed Twitter parody account for a moment, let me state bluntly that retirement ain't a public good. Just get that nonsense out of your head right now (maybe something about your kids too).

The most expansive definition of a public good carries with it two criteria (one of which is suspect as-is, and the other is suspect over a long enough time horizon), so let's judge retirement against the most stringent criteria: rivalry and excludability.

I admit to feeling a little foolish for this, but I want you to ask yourself if your consumption of your own retirement prevent others from consuming your retirement? Now, you might claim that state-provided pension funds mean that your drawing from a common-pool fund means that I have fewer funds available for my retirement, but that's not rivalry in retirement, it's an aspect of public funding of retirements. It's a fiscal externality, if you will. Your retirement is your lunch. No one can eat it for you. It's completely rival.

Now ask yourself if (again, apologies for the silliness of the question) you can exclude others from consuming your retirement. Is your snowbirding in Boca Raton tantamount to busking?

Your retirement is rival and excludable. It is not a public good. So it's odd to me that economists so quickly fret over the "sustainability" or solvency of SSI. Worries about unfunded liabilities seem to tacitly accept that it's meet and proper for the state to supply something for which there is no market failure either theoretically or empirically.

Now then, you might claim that retirement planning is non-euvoluntary since we know of hyperbolic discounting and have heard plenty of stories of ex post regret. Okay, well that's another story. Individuals can be unlucky or short-sighted. Perhaps there's some other moral intuition going on outside of the strict economics. And that's cool. But the arguments (for and against!) don't typically start from there. And when they do, it still seems a mighty leap to claim systematic error.

Remember, people: widespread and systematic are two very different things. To be systematic, the decisions of one person must necessarily influence the decisions of other people. You know how to make that happen? Nationalize retirement accounts.

Now, perhaps there is room for coercion in there somewhere. I actually think it would be a fine, fine idea to have opt-out quasi-mandatory personal retirement accounts. This is a perfect opportunity for the nudge folks to shine. But OASDI as is? It's the opposite of euvoluntary, whatever that is.

ULAFT: unfunded liabilities are future taxes, and boy howdy are they ever substantial.

Also recall that a better ratio of fiscal health is (total discounted future liabilities)/(total discounted collectible tax receipts). This debt/GDP ratio is a red herring, and you know it.

Monday, July 29, 2013

Conspicuous Consumption

Is a $40,000 case of wine euvoluntary? Neil Irwin says no, and underpinned by utilitarian calculus, it's not an unreasonable claim. If you've got a few dozen thousand dollars to throw at a half a liter of rotten grapes, you can afford to buy some bed nets or tap an aquifer in sub-Saharan Africa.

Of course, that's generally true for people of more modest means too. You might not be able to save 1.5 million people, but you can surely save one or two lives by brewing your own coffee instead of queuing up at Starbucks for fru-fru sugarmilk confections. Does the suffering of distant people enter into your BATNA calculus?

Should it? How do we know when it becomes salient?

Monday, December 3, 2012

Guilt as Coercion

Quick show of hands: how many of you have made a mad dash for the florist after inelegantly cramming a freshly-polished Chuck Taylor in your gob? If I can eventually reject the null hypothesis that n of you=0, then the probability that somewhere between one and all (both?) of my readers understand that the coercing party to a trade ain't the party of the first part nor the party of the second part. It's pretty often the party of the aggrieved part, no matter how illusory might that grievance be.

Case number one: Mr. Sperlonjohannssenmannvich had to stay late to finish up a report on the Vickers account and missed Sally's flute recital. Racked with guilt, he buys her a puppy and the latest Pet Shop Boys LP (ha ha anachronism).

Case numero dos: Pablo Morales has been growing coffee since he was knee-high to Juan Valdez's trusty burro (¡Disfrute de un buen cafĂ©!), and Calpurnia Pisonis of Rome, GA just saw a nicely-done documentary on Netflix about how Pablo is being exploited by the coffee exchanges in Buenos Aires. Aghast, filled to the brim with twenty years' guilt over taking coffee growers for a ride, she pledges to switch to Fair Trade (a registered trademark of the Fairtrade Foundation) Coffee.

Cases one and dos rely on similar perceptions. Sally's stoicism precludes her from crying to daddy about his neglect, meaning that he's apologizing to an avatar he created ex ante to head off hurt feelings at the pass. Calpurnia likewise needs no actual contact with Pablo to "know" that he's being ripped off by his chosen trade. Guilt in each case is compelling a voluntary trade (one for a puppy/vinyl combo, the other for fresh-roasted whole bean aromas), so there's not too much for a euvoluntaryist to bellyache about here.

But wait! There's more!

Case 3: K.L. Giffins has a line of clothing manufactured in the Gabonese Republic. The Grey Lady gets wind of the factory conditions and for a solid week, the Times' Op-ed page is flush with calls for immediate and unequivocal boycott. Loyal readers comply over the pitiful objections of a few crank economists.

Case five: Collective guilt over the institution of slavery leads the US Congress to "repatriate" former slaves to the newly sovereign nation of Liberia.

These cases take the intuitions underpinning the first two and apply them with less finesse. Consider the difference between the coffee and the t-shirts: Pablo could at least apply for fair-trade status if he thought it worth the effort. Giffins and her employees are just plain sunk. The alternatives for the java are: a) stay in business and make traditional ICO rates or b) hop on the Fair Trade streetcar and make their rates. The alternatives for Giffins is to a) try to mollify customers somehow or b) shutter the factory. If it's unprofitable to do (a), then it's back to... use your imagination... for the former seamstresses.

The less said about Liberia, the better.

So, it seems that at the appropriate scale, guilt probably serves as a decent enough sentiment to compel us to deeds that serve our interests. Start down the trail of collectivizing and enforcing it, and pretty soon, we leave the vale of euvoluntarity behind and may end up with bloodthirsty tyrants like Chuck Charles Taylor brought up on crimes against humanity.

Beware guilt, for she is as fire.