People who think a lot about economics often have reactions that strike others as unusual.
For example, I recently finished registering for a 10k run in Astoria, Oregon. As part of the registration process, you had to select when you’ll be picking up your race packet (a prepacked bag that would have, among other things, your race bib with a built in time tracker). There were a few windows of time available in the few days leading up to the race, along with an option to pick it up on the day of the race on-site. This last option came with a “convenience fee” of $25 dollars or so. And as soon as I saw that you had to pay to pick it up at the most convenient time and place, my immediate reaction was, “Oh, that’s nice.”
My reasoning was along these lines: Thousands of people run in this event each year. The race organizers have to get all those people set up and ready in a fairly short time on the morning of the run. Encouraging people to already have their race packets picked up and ready to go before all this initial herding of racers happens would do a lot to make the process more streamlined. If all those thousands of people showed up to finally get their packets on the morning of the event at the same time, it would seriously gum up the process. So to minimize that, a fee makes sense. It limits the number of people who need to go through this process at the last minute, and those who do a late pickup will tend to be people who valued that option the most.
This is just one of a number of times I’ve found myself feeling grateful that some service or other isn’t available for free.
Another time I had this reaction was when I began working at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston several years ago. The MUSC campus downtown included a gym facility. Members of the public could get a membership at this gym but MUSC employees, faculty, and students got a discounted membership rate as a perk. I recall hearing a coworker make a comment along the lines of “I don’t see why we just get a discount. We work here, we should be able to use the gym for free!” But I was glad it wasn’t free. MUSC has tens of thousands of employees, students, and faculty. You don’t want to go to a gym that tens of thousands of people can drop into any time for free! Even with the fee, it was usually pretty packed. Making it free would have just made it unusable.
One other easy example that comes to mind is airport parking. Any time I have to fly out of Minneapolis airport and leave my car there, I usually have to go up and down the lanes of the parking garage several times to find an open spot. If people could just park their car at the airport and leave it there for free, finding a parking space would go from the realm of from slightly arduous to requiring divine intervention.
There are two different questions I think people can easily conflate. The first question is easy to grasp: “Would I like it if I, personally, could get this for free?” (Answer: Yes, obviously!) But the second and very different question is, “Do I want to live in a world where everyone can lay claim to this, for free?” The answer to that question is almost always an emphatic no.
When I get something I really value, and that benefits me in a big way, my reaction is to be genuinely and deeply grateful that I paid for it and that it wasn’t available for free. It’s just one of the ways that understanding ideas like trade-offs and opportunity cost and scarcity can broaden your vision and enhance your experience of gratitude. And I think that’s something the world can use a little more of these days.
READER COMMENTS
Robert EV
Jul 22 2025 at 3:02pm
I think the issue is proportionality of payment. I think people would be happiest if the things they want are within their ability to afford, but with opportunity costs (i.e. you can’t buy everything you want, but you can pick and choose X amount of them). It’s when this X is small, or zero, that a person most wants things for free. When this X is large a person values the rationing effect of pricing.
It strikes me that a race packet could be packed and mailed for less than $25. And that most people who decline to pay the $25 cost aren’t accounting for the monetary cost to drive to the pickup site before the day of the race. So many things seem cheaper than they actually are, or in the case of those who do pay the $25, more expensive than they actually are. Most of us are poor accountants.
Kevin Corcoran
Jul 22 2025 at 5:14pm
Indeed, there was an option to have the race packet mailed. If memory serves, that was something like six dollars. I didn’t go with that route, however, because then I’d have to repack it here in Minnesota and take it thorough the airport with me when I fly to Oregon. So to avoid that mild hassle, I’ll just be picking up my packet on the day prior to the race at a designated pick up point, for no extra charge.
Craig
Jul 22 2025 at 9:22pm
It might qualify as ‘media mail’
Matthias
Jul 22 2025 at 9:22pm
I think if you just expand the sentence a little it’s more intuitive:
“Be glad it ain’t free–for other people.”
You would still benefit from a benefit being free for you, but you know that the fee keeps out the unwashed masses and that might be worth more than the trivial inconvenience of the fee you have to pay.
Kevin Corcoran
Jul 23 2025 at 9:32am
Sure, that’s why I acknowledged the first question (the one I think people substitute when asking about if something should be free) is “Would I like it if I, personally, could get this for free?” And to that, the answer would be an obvious yes. But one thing economics also does is teach people to look at the world with larger eyes than that – to see beyond things in such a myopic and self-centered way. Sure, I’d like it if it was free for me personally. But do I really want to be the kind of person who says “What I want is for everyone else to have to pay for this but I should be entitled to use it anytime I want while owing nothing in return.” When I examine that perspective as the impartial spectator Adam Smith described, I absolutely cringe at the thought of being that kind of person. That’s not the kind of person I want to be. And I think most people, if they thought about it a little more, would also see that they don’t want to be that kind of person either, and would see the world in a different light because of it.
Also, I will still be among the “unwashed masses” picking up my race packet in the days prior to the race, without the fee. I’ll be arriving in Astoria with enough time to do so, so I’ll be leaving a space for a last minute pick up for someone who, unlike me, really needs it.
Matthias
Jul 25 2025 at 7:35am
I picked the ‘unwashed masses’ formulation to be extra clear, at the expense of being the opposite of politically correct.
Yes, I agree with basically everything said.
Btw, traffic congestion is another case of the same point: practically any place on earth could fix traffic congestion overnight these days: with a congestion charge.
Alas, it’s only politically feasible in a select few places. Even NYC got a very watered down version with a fixed fee, instead of one that’s dynamically adjusted to fit traffic conditions.
john hare
Jul 23 2025 at 4:16am
My shorthand to people talking free. “The last time “free” came with 18 years of weekly payments.” Very clear to this redneck community, my screen name is redneck in other forums.
Robert EV
Jul 23 2025 at 12:10pm
Everything’s free if you don’t live long enough to pay for it. The credit economy apparently existed a lot longer than official lines of credit from a lender.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Jul 23 2025 at 12:56pm
Negative externalities, whether gym/parking space congestion or CO2 emissions, should taxed.
Kevin Corcoran
Jul 23 2025 at 2:12pm
Airport parking space decidedly isn’t a negative externality. Granted, if I park in a parking space, that creates one less space for you to park in, but that’s not a negative externality. Negative externalities are costs I impose on you for which I do not pay. But I do, in fact, pay for my use of the parking space, so although by taking it I’m making less space for you, I am also paying for that cost. That is, I’m creating a cost for you by taking up a spot you might have wanted to use, but nonetheless I’m internalizing that cost, because it’s built into the price of airport parking. So, no externality there.
Granted, if airport parking was constantly full, to the point where it was basically as inaccessible as you might imagine if it were available at no price, then that would be problem. But that’s still not an externality problem. The problem is that airport parking is underpriced, and the price needs to rise! But we don’t need a tax to solve that problem – if I owned a parking garage and noticed that it was constantly at max capacity, and that people were frequently looking to park there only to be turned away because it was full, I’d respond by just raising the price.
Mark Barbieri
Jul 25 2025 at 4:08am
My biggest “I hate that it is free” issue is with most airlines’ carry-on policy. I would love it if they let me pay to reserve an overhead space. I could take my time boarding. I wouldn’t have to worry about whether I’d get my bag onboard. I’d feel more comfortable taking expensive items that are more likely to be stolen if my bag is checked. Then they complain about “gate lice” clogging up the boarding area. It’s because you’re allocating a valuable resource on a first-come/first-served basis. Frustrating.
Robert EV
Jul 25 2025 at 11:25am
They’d overbook it the way they do seating.
It’s been almost two decades since I was last on a flight that I needed suitcases on, and then I limited my carry-on to what would fit under the seat. That space is one that you effectively do pay for, and are entitled to (as long as you don’t have a front row seat).
Comments are closed.