• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Leaving Things For Others

    April 12th, 2020
    giving, covid-19  [html]
    With covid I've seen many calls to leave things for others:

    Let's set aside for the moment whether these are accurate, [1] does this kind of thing work? These are all cases where at the current price there are many more people who want the thing than people who can supply the thing. In normal times the price would rise until these balanced, but in emergencies our society has chosen not to allow that. Let's say you're considering buying store-brand kidney beans, a WIC-eligible item, the last one on the shelf. If you choose not to buy it, what happens?

    One possibility is that it stays on the shelf until someone who can only buy the store brand of kidney beans comes along, and they're able to buy it. Another is that someone who doesn't know to look for the WIC symbol comes along, and they buy it instead.

    There are about 7M people covered by WIC in the US, out of a population of 330M, so 1 in 50 shoppers is a decent estimate for what fraction care about the WIC status of items. This means that whether leaving it for someone else is likely to work depends enormously on whether you expect most of society to be going along with it. If it's just you and a few other scrupulous people, probably someone else who isn't on WIC buys the kidney beans, while if nearly everyone is doing this then it probably works.

    The thing is, though, getting everyone on board with one of these, distributing the message widely so that everyone hears it, explaining the details of why it matters so people agree and go along with it, is really hard! And pretty much all the time, instead of putting out calls for individuals to leave things for others it makes more sense for sellers to apply restrictions. For example, UK supermarkets have been trying to restrict delivery to vulnerable people and US supermarkets have been designating hours for vulnerable people and essential workers.

    Avoiding things in the hope that someone who especially needs them will be able to get them instead usually won't work, and isn't a very good altruistic tradeoff. If you do want to improve distribution in situations like this, encouraging sellers to prioritize is likely much more valuable. Alternatively, look for ways to shift demand to other things and work around the shortage.


    [1] For example, in MA distribution of EBT is staggered throughout the month, but "don't buy on 4/1" was still going around in local groups here.

    Comment via: facebook, lesswrong, the EA Forum

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Case Selection

    Eric and I recently sent in a list of criteria for case selection. We’re currently funded for 6 detailed case studies, of which one is the Green Line Extension in Boston due to funding from a different grant. My guess is that we need about 15-20 different…

    via Pedestrian Observations August 1, 2020

    Collections: Bread, How Did They Make It? Part II: Big Farms

    This is the second part of our look at the basic structure of food production (particularly grains to make bread) in the pre-modern world. Last week, we began by looking at the great majority of our rural population, the little farmers. Now I know everyon…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry July 31, 2020

    Attention is your scarcest resource

    how to ration your shower thoughts • care viscerally • monotask • evade obligations • timebox bullshit

    via benkuhn.net July 29, 2020

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact