A while back we discussed the issue of queues, and why it is not usual to offer to pay those ahead to switch places. My hypothesis was that this was due to culture, and the alternative hypothesis was that it was due to economic ignorance.
I conducted an experiment on Saturday, August 3, at my local post office. On Saturdays there are many waiting to be served. The queue operates by number. When I arrived, there were ten people on the queue. Since each person held a ticket with a number, one could tell how far up the queue that person was. I randomly offered people money to switch places with me, starting at 25c. Upon refusal, I increased the offer to 50c, $1, $2, and then $3. Nobody accepted the offer. One person said he would do it for $1500. Others said they would just not accept money for a switch in numbers. Even the person just ahead of me in the queue refused to switch. One man said, "Money should not buy everything." I asked, "Why not?" Man: "It's a principle." I: "Why is it a principle?" Man: "It's my principle." Based on this evidence, I conclude that my hypothesis is not rejected. It also seems very unlikely that the refusals are due to economic ignorance. The person ahead of me would likely realize that nobody else would be affected if we switched places. The "man of principle" confirmed that it is a cultural convention. Moreover, the folks seemed to think the concept of paying to switch highly distasteful. My wife agrees with my hypothesis. She says such a thing "is just not done." Admittedly, this is a small sample, but it seems to be that the experiment would have a similar result if repeated. Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
