New Ruling on "Plan B" Contraceptives

Recently, the government overruled an FDA recommendation to allow "Plan B" birth control without a prescription. The decision has come under heavy fire from the left and right, and especially from Female-interest groups and groups dedicated to advancing women's equality and liberty. But as the decision holds, anyone over the age of 17 can get "Plan B" without a prescription, while those under 17 must get a prescription. Hopefully it won't hold for long. 

The rationale provided by the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for ignoring the FDA recommendation was that the study conducted failed to assess the impact on girls of all ages. Additionally, she worried that girls under the age of 17 would buy the pill and use it incorrectly. Another argument I have heard is that girls under age 17 could also come to abuse it in other ways, such as relying on it as a form of birth control. Frankly, I find these arguments ridiculous. First, Sebelius wanted the study to include girls all the way down to age 11. I don't think this is a reasonable claim. Second, imagine how easily a black market will develop. Girls who want to get the pill without a prescription will simply find an older friend or even a sibling and have them buy it instead. The same tactic already occurs with alcohol, which, let me remind you, is not hard to get by any measure despite the age limit. Third, girls who are on the fence about taking the emergency contraceptive may now be incentivized to err on the side opposite caution, since the cost of getting the pill has just been raised. And four, the "Plan B" contraceptive only has a 72 hour period of effectiveness after any sort of pregnancy scare. For some, the added time of finding out how to get a prescription, locating a doctor to prescribe it, and then finding a pharmacy to fill it may take too long for some. What if the doctor is out of town, the pharmacy is closed, or there are other extenuating circumstances? 

To give the other side a point I have not yet heard, this does have at least one benefit, which is that now girls must go to a doctor to get a prescription, which means that both a doctor and likely a parent will be involved, which will make the use safer. This will also facilitate discussion about sex, pregnancy, and contraceptives, and promote responsibility. However, these reasons are not enough to offset the high cost of this decision. It will be interesting to see if there are more teen pregnancies in the future.

Saving the Last of my Declining

This week I finally got around to purchasing a clamshell. I don't know why I didn't earlier. Honestly, it is one of the best investments anyone with an unlimited plan can make. For $5, you can buy access to clamshells for the entirety of the school year. Then, you can take as much food as you would like from either of the unlimited dining centers, which are a sunk cost, and bring it back to the dorm to save for times when you get hungry. Instead of going to the Pit or Hillside, you can just take the food you stored from Danforth or Douglass. Over time, the money saved adds up. Maybe I wouldn't have so little declining if I had just invested in the clamshell earlier.

Now, here's the interesting thing. I was baffled that the price of the clamshell was so low! Honestly, $5 for the entire year? Given the fact that you only have to purchase the clamshell once each year, the demand should be relatively inelastic, and the price elasticity should be very low. I would pay much more than $5 for access to the clamshell. Even a $20 price would seem low given how much it would save me. And again, I only have to buy it once? I truly would buy it a a lot more than $5. So why is the price so low? Well, I figured it had something to do with the price of tupperware, and the price of other potential containers, which act as substitutes for the clamshell. However, I don't believe people will turn quickly to tupperware. The clamshell is too convenient, and people often don't care to invest the time to utilize the alternative options. For me, it was a relatively spontaneous decision, made when I was in a rush but wanted to eat more. Buying one had been in the back of my mind for some time, but I had denied that I needed one. Guess having $15 left in declining changed that mentality...

The Thanksgiving Holiday

Thanksgiving is here again, and I was lucky enough to see my family and friends after traveling home for the first time in months for a much needed break. To get home, I flew out from the Rochester airport to LaGuardia and from there took a shuttle home. The flight was delayed for four hours, and a little turbulent, especially when landing, but it was great to be home. Flying above NYC is an amazing experience, seeing the sheer size of the city and how complex it must have been to build is not a sight that I hope to ever take for granted. It is truly a testament to human ability. Seeing random lights from cars or houses in the darkness is always welcome and gives me a sort of vicarious experience as I try to place myself in the position of whomever I am observing from way above, and wonder what it must be like to be where they are. I would comment on the shuttle ride too, but traffic isn't quite as appealing. Still, I made it home, and I was glad to be there. 

Now, over the break my parents gave me a curfew (which in my mind was absolutely ridiculous, and embarrassing I might add), and thinking economically, I decided to counter with the argument that they were only incentivizing me to drive faster, and that if I really wanted to stay out I would anyway. Of course, this argument was entirely bogus, but I thought it would be funny to make. Well, as you would expect, it got a chuckle but no sympathy. Their argument for a curfew was that if I stayed out late,  I tended to sleep in during the day. Aha! To this, I can make a much better economic argument. So I did. I explained how I valued staying out late more than I valued waking up early, since my evening hours are often more productive than my morning hours. At night, I can stay up late hanging out with friends, and on Thanksgiving I even stayed up late to do work. How responsible! On the flip side, in the mornings I am usually at a loss for what to do: my friends are asleep, plans always occur in the afternoon, and I usually do not have the drive to work. So of course I want to sleep in! I get more sleep and get to use the time I value more in the evening. Who are they to tell me what time to get home? 

Well, unfortunately, it didn't take long for them to counter that too. I wake them up when I come home late, and typically my dog starts barking, which potentially wakes up the whole house. And they also worry more when I am out late, finding it difficult to sleep if they know that I am not home. Oh well, it appears that they have a point. Still, I thought my argument was good.

Keystone XL Pipeline

There recently has been a lot of controversy over a proposed oil pipeline running from Canada to Texas. Coverage of the movements against the pipeline have been smothered by Occupy Wall Street, which is a seemingly indomitable media force. Regardless, the resistance has been fierce - at one point protestors circled the White House, demanding that the project be scrapped - and the White House and Obama recently caved, calling for the State Department to further investigate the proposed pipeline before approving it. It is a controversial issue, and one that features two typical combatants in today's economy: environmentalists vs. businessmen. Which side are you on?

At first, I was skeptical of the public outrage, fearing that it was a product of misplaced passion which lacked full knowledge of the details of the pipeline. The clear benefits of the pipeline also made it difficult for me to comprehend why anyone would fight its development. For an opening point, the pipeline would help provide a significant and consistent source of oil from a friendly, neighboring country, rather than the often semi-hostile Mid-Eastern countries. Valid theories abound that our wars in the Middle-East are motivated at least in part by oil interests. Building a pipeline would help the US withdraw from foreign oil investments, disentangling us from messy middle-eastern governments and insurgency groups. And what about high oil prices? Gas is very expensive, and its rising prices are oft-quoted as a rising problem for middle to low income families, who cannot afford to spend more at the pump. In addition, high oil prices have been cited as an element which could damage our economy and dampen the already slow, if not non-existent, recovery. (On a side note, maybe environmentalists should desire high oil prices. This would shift consumers towards more eco-friendly and environmentally sustainable resources, and away from dirty fossil fuels.) This spike in price has been caused by a spike in demand and a constant supply curve. In short, the scarcity of oil has increased, due to an increased disparity between demand and supply. If all goes well, the Keystone XL pipeline would drastically increase our oil supply, and in doing so would drop the price of gas. As an added perk, a pipeline is one of the more effecient and cheap ways to transport oil.  The last benefit is the most over-used term in all of economics: "job-creation". So in short, allowing the pipeline to continue would increase our supply of oil, drop oil prices by increasing supply, increase our energy security, saving lives by decreasing our foreign interests, and create American, yes, American, jobs while simultaneously boosting Canada's export economy and providing them jobs. 

Now for the counter-argument. The company running the pipeline has a terrible spill record, with something around 12 spills attributed to them over the past year. This is inexcusable, especially given that the pipeline will run directly underneath one of the main fresh-water reservoirs in the United States. In the event of a spill, adding more chemicals to neutralize other chemicals and clean the water is unappealing at best. But didn't an independent third-party company review the project and its safety merits, and approve it? Unfortunately, a little research into this statement and you will find that the company hired by the US government to assess the project is basically a subsidiary of the company building the Keystone pipeline. The conflict of interest is immense, almost entirely discrediting the "objective" analysis which legitimized this project. The final point is that tar sands extraction releases 19 percent more carbon emissions into the air than Mid-Eastern crude oil, contributing to global climate change. To be honest, this side has a more compelling argument than I would have expected. The risk of contaminating a major US aquifer is the most worrying aspect to consider. 

Should we build it? 

Despite the draw-backs, which are both legitimate and great, the Keystone XL pipeline should be allowed to continue, though only after further investigation and effective regulation to mitigate dangers. I support its final construction, but currently find it hard to support because of the compromised analysis of its safety and the company's record of spills. I support the pipeline, but the protestors have a valid point. Let's wait for a more comprehensive analysis, then build. 

Risk-Taking with my Math Homework

Every Sunday night, I have webwork due for my math class. Typically, I am done with the homework with a comfortable amount of time left-over. This week was different. Between three midterms and other work, I did not have the time or energy to make a solid crack at the homework. Instead of forcing it, I decided to take a risk, and give myself a break to recover. Waiting until Sunday was a good idea, right? I thought so. So, there I found myself, Sunday afternoon in the lounge, working on my webwork. By four, I had finished 5 of the 14 problems. Not bad, but at 4:30 I was going to celebrate my birthday and the birthday of someone else on the hall. We were going to "The Cheesecake Factory" and I was not about to miss it. And besides, I needed a break, right? I went, planning on getting back with at least two hours left to complete my work. Then, on the way over, I found out that we were taking the 7:29 bus back, placing us back on campus around 8:05. That would give me 55 minutes. By then, I was on the bus and it was too late. Regardless, I threw regret aside and had a good time at dinner with my hall mates.

Then I returned to the dorm, with 55 minutes and around 10 problems left. Doing the math, that gave me 5 and a half minutes per problem. Not a great time cushion, especially considering it had taken me an hour to do 5 problems before I left. Uh-oh. I grabbed my computer, rushed to the lounge, and started frantically working away. Minute by minute, I got closer and closer to finishing. In fact, by 8:40, I had one problem left. And at 8:59, I kid you not, I finished the last problem, one minute before it was due. 

Was it worth it to wait? In most cases, probably not. But in this case? Yes, it definitely was. I went out, celebrated and had a phenomenal dinner at "The Cheesecake Factory", and still completed my webwork. I don't know what the economic term is for "stress-induced efficiency", but I would be interested in finding out, because it worked for me. 

However, for all those seeking to emulate my gargantuan accomplishment, I offer a disclaimer: I do not know how to replicate any of the problems and would not say with confidence that I truly learned how to do any of them. I moved too quickly to absorb what I was doing, and often times would get it correct through a combination of luck, guessing, and yes, mathematical intuition. This was the cost of rushing through the homework at the last minute. I also may have a stress-induced headache.

To mitigate this cost, I intend to look back at all the problems an go over how to do them. Except now, I will be able to review with a 100% grade on the webwork assignment. In this case, the risk paid off, but it will not be one I continue to make.

"Job Creation" in New Jersey

I had almost forgotten this ridiculous law, but it was recently brought back to my attention. In New Jersey, you are not allowed to pump your own gas. Why not? Because it creates jobs of course! What kind of crazy economist would criticize this law? It creates jobs, which must be a good thing, right? Don't you care about the jobs?

Let me begin by explaining the mentality that leads to the belief that this is good for the economy. Self-sufficiency is bad for the economy (only when it prevents specialization of labor, comparative advantages, etc...but let's ignore those for now). Jobs are good for the economy (again there are constraints to this and this overgeneralizes and assumes a contextual vacuum, but again let's move on). Therefore, we should prevent people from being self-sufficient to then create jobs, which are good for the economy.

This is entirely backwards, and I cannot believe this law hasn't been repealed. If I pull up to a gas station, get out of the car and pump my own gas (imagine!), I will be fined. Implicit here is the concept that pumping your own gas is damaging to the economy. Really? Does this make any sense? Think about it. If this were true, why should we do anything ourselves? Here's an illustrative challenge: Take everything you do during the day, and break it into its smallest components. Now imagine you had to pay someone else to do each individual job, one person per component. Would this help or hurt the economy? More specifically, would this make you better or worse off? Now imagine everyone had to do this. Would we have time to do anything? Or any money left to spend? NO! The cost of doing anything would rise significantly, since the costs would be spread over a larger population. Efficiency would become non-existent.

Here's another illustration. When I go to Danforth, I should sit down at a table and have people serve me. If I want water, I pay someone to do it for me. If I want to get food, I don't have to leave my chair, I just pay someone to do that too. Voila! I have created two jobs. Forget the fact that the jobs are useless, isn't this good for the economy? As Rizzo mentioned, jobs are a cost, not a benefit! It is now harder for me to acquire water and food. Where there was previously minimal cost for getting my own food and water, there is now a real, tangible cost. I have to pay people to walk for me. Water and food are now less available to me.  I have just wasted money paying someone to do something I could easily do myself without paying anything. Instead of spending the money on a more useful endeavor, I have just put it towards having a servant.  What an awful concept. There is no benefit here.

The Winter and Partying

It seems the Rochester winter is finally beginning to descend upon us, bringing with it biting winds, a gray winter sky, and precipitation which is neither rain nor snow, but something in between. Without a doubt, the winter will be cold and snowy. It always is. So, my question is: how will the change in season affect campus, and specifically the party scene?

Campus first. Let's begin with the obvious. There will be more warm clothes, more people in the tunnels, fewer people walking around outside at any given moment, and many more people in the dorms. This last change may result in higher grades. I wonder if there is any noticeable correlation between the weather and average GPAs on campus. My hypothesis is that as the temperature goes down, grades go up. The off-setting factor may be lower morale and energy brought about by the cold, but I still think the extra incentive to stay inside and study will increase grades slightly. More subtle changes will be a shift in attendance at the dining halls. Most people on the academic quad will probably go to Douglass more, and perhaps the Pit will see some higher revenues. Sue B people will probably forego the walk to Douglass and eat at Danforth. Starbucks too will probably see some more profits due to an increased demand for warm drinks. And the libraries will probably be less crowded. Extracurriculars might slow down as well. Maybe people are used to it and none of this will really change.

Now on to the party scene. Off-campus parties? Fuhgeddaboudit. Not happening. Only the really dedicated party goers will make the trek over the bridge, so I fully expect that the off-campus parties will really slow down. This would be a big boost to the Frat Quad. Unfortunately, one major issue here is that there are only 4 open frats on campus (is it 3?). The rest are on probation. So every weekend, anyone trying to get into a party will probably have to wait outside in line. Imagine that! People will inevitably be under-dressed for the weather, and will have to stand outside! Sounds awful. I'm pretty sure most people would wait for maybe five minutes and then leave. Or they just won't go. One or the other. And even those who wait in line will probably be rewarded with some of the most crowded parties you will see during the year. However, I expect this to level off. At first, there will be long lines and crowding, but after people discover these difficulties, they may just choose to stay in the dorm. The true party-goers will be revealed, and the less dedicated ones will be weeded out. The question is, will the drinking just shift to the dorm? I would bet that there will be a slightly higher rate of incidents in the dorms due to people drinking in their rooms or the like. Instead of going out, people will stay in. Simple.

A more subtle effect may be more lost jackets and warm clothes. If people do dress warmly for the frats, they will have to offload their jackets and other warmer clothes when they get inside. Then they go inside, dance,  drink, and then leave, forgetting the winter coats and gloves! On second thought, I think it would be too cold to completely forgot, so let me remedy my prediction. There will probably be more people who leave and then have to come back. Even then, this number will probably be low, but there might be a slight increase in lost clothing.

We'll see in the coming months how many of my predictions turn out to be right.

The Honor System

Panera Bread in St. Louis has come up with a new pricing model. Though the concept is not entirely new - Radiohead used the same idea when it digitally released its album "In Rainbows" - it is somewhat novel as a business model. The new pricing scheme is to have customers pay as much or as little as they want for their food: "Take what you need, leave your fair share". Under this new model, there are no set prices. What was the inspiration behind this change? The article quotes Panera owner and founder Ron Schaich as saying "he's trying to find out what human nature is all about...There's no pressure on anyone to leave anything, but if no one left anything, we wouldn't be around long." Customers who do not pay are encouraged to volunteer at the restaurant, but there is no official or binding requirement of payment. 

So, what will be the outcome of this? Will philanthropy succeed and keep the business alive, or will the business go bankrupt after watching revenue fall below profitability? 

My hypothesis is that the business will, unfortunately, go bankrupt or have to revert back to traditional pricing. Here's why. At first, the business may actually make more money. Customers with a sense of social justice or social responsibility will give more as a symbol of admiration to the cause. It will be their way of "paying" the business for its humanitarianism. As Rizzo talked about in class, the official term for this theory would be "reciprocal altrusim". And I believe that it would apply here, and would work...in the short term. In the long-term, let's look at incentives. People who can't afford the food have just been informed that price is no object. I've been to Panera, it's good food. If I couldn't afford to eat at restaurants, and a place as good as Panera offered me free food, I would go there as often as I could stand it. This increased demand would offset any philanthropy. Even if the company brought in more money through this method, I believe there would be too much demand. Demand would counteract philanthropy and the net effect would be a loss. In addition, those who already eat there have no incentive to eat there more often, unless they don't want to pay. Incentives have only changed for those who wouldn't otherwise eat there because of the cost. Without new paying customers or old customers paying more, Panera could not handle the increased traffic.

In a way, this situation is similar to that of the unlimited meal plan. There are no new costs for going to the unlimited dining halls. Essentially, since I have paid the one-time fee, they are now "free" dining halls. Now there are other places to eat on campus, but since I know that the unlimited dining halls do not cost me anything new, I find myself eating exclusively at Douglass or Danforth. Even if I am hungry and neither is open, I will wait until they open so that I do not have to spend declining. The same thing would happen at Panera. Non-paying customers will flock there. 

The only way this could survive would be if customers who didn't pay did volunteer their time to the company. However, time is a highly valuable commodity, and I do not believe people would give up time to save one branch of Panera, especially if there are others available though those aren't free. 

I hope I am wrong, but that is my prediction of the fate of this Panera bread and their humanistic experiment.

My 1992 Audi

My EWOT this week is in tribute to my first car, a 1992 Audi 100s which lasted for 170,000 miles. It passed away right before I left for college, after reliably running for 18 years.

Through all the breakdowns and expenses as the car slowly started to fail, I fought for it. My mom wanted to scrap the car. In her opinion it was well past due. With each expense, she became more convinced that we should scrap it. However, she clearly misunderstood the economic reasons why the car was a better pick than any new car off the lot. Firstly, my car was so old that it had no insurance. So we saved plenty there. On to of this, even as the expenses started adding up, there was no way it would reach a sum approaching the cost of a new vehicle. Each repair was an economically justifiable investment with a good return. Besides, we all knew I only drove it around town. Any farther and I would begin to see smoke. Come out of the front. Then again, maybe that is why she was worried. But anyway, a local car was really all I needed, so why spring for a brand new one? As Rizzo said in class today, this would only be beneficial if the car was completely shot, which it wasn't.

If only I had known what I had known today, then maybe I could have saved the car for a little bit longer.

Interestingly enough, I stumbled upon an old blog post on Rizzo's site that talked about the "Cash for Clunkers" program. When the car wouldn't sell, or, to be more accurate, would break down every time we had a deal in the works, we thought about trading it in. If the car were eligible, odds are good that it would have been turned in as a clunker. Unfortunately, it was too old and had too many miles. Essentially, it was too much of a clunker. Really?

But for a moment, let's pretend we traded it in. With the $4500 credit and new need for a car, I can guarantee that we would have shopped around and spent on a brand new vehicle almost immediately. So that's money put back into the economy, right? My Audi certainly was doing the economy no good, though it helped me get around. And a brand new car is good for me and the dealer. It's a win-win. Where's the problem?

There are a few. First, you have to follow the resources, as Rizzo told us in class. If we had turned the car in to have it turned to scrap metal, there would be one less car on the road today. Why not just give a $4500 credit and let us keep the car? Trust me, I loved that car. I would have kept it. Maybe we could have even salvaged it. Then, we would have had two cars instead of one, and the same amount of money in our pocket compared to the turn-in program. So there is the first problem. The second is more long term. Within a month of the car actually breaking down, long after we could sell it or turn it in, we went out and bought a brand new one. So in the long-run, either way we would have bought a new car. Had we bought one then, we wouldn't have bought one later. So in the end, the money pumped back into the economy would have been equivalent at best, though I will argue that it would have been less. There was a cap on the price of the car you could buy using the program's credit. It was $45,000. The car we bought later was more expensive. So, even under Keynesian economics, the net contribution to the economy would have been actually less had we taken advantage of "Cash for Clunkers". And the government did not have to pay a $4500 subsidy on our new car, which saved them money. Simply put, "Cash for Clunkers" was not a stimulative program.

For all those who disagree, let's just look at the end results. "Cash for Clunkers" would have taken the car and junked it, maybe recycling the engine. We donated our car to the local fire station so that they could use it for training, training that will help save them learn how to pull living victims from burning or crushed cars. It is training that will help them save the lives of crash victims. Which is the more useful contribution to society?

Is Fighting Forest Fires Economical?

Is fighting forest fires economical?

The definition of "forest fires" is pretty self-explanatory, but for this analysis I will only look at forest fires that pose no threat to human existence. Though an economic argument could be made that it might be cheaper to relocate people and compensate them for their loss, it is an argument for a different day. So, here I go. We spend around $2 billion dollars annually fighting forest fires. This is a lot of money, though relatively small compared to our current deficit. But we cut NASA, didn't we? Anyway, over time forests develop thick undergrowth and a layer of brush, naturally built up from falling leaves and any dead material that ends up on the forest floor. This creates a highly flammable surface of dry materials. Herein lies the problem. If we artificially suppress forest fires in areas where they naturally occur, this pile of waste builds up. So the fuel builds and builds, until finally it alights. Because of our fire prevention, this new fire has much more to consume than it would naturally, and is therefore much more severe. According to the Wikipedia page, this has led to the replacement of slow, cool-burning fires with fast, blazingly hot fires which are much harder to control and often cause more damage.

Trees are also living entities. As with all living entities, they eventually die and begin to rot. Forest fires clear these dead trees, creating space for new trees to grow. Dead trees are timber waiting to be burned. If we prevent their destruction, as with the undergrowth, we may be setting ourselves up for worse fires later on. We may also be blocking the path for future healthy growth.

Rizzo likes to say that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". This may be one example where we would be better off leaving nature to do its work.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist.

"The Freshman 15"

What are the causes of the dreaded "Freshman 15"?

Economists like to explain everything in terms of incentives. Well, here is my explanation for the Freshmen 15. First and foremost is the drinking. For many college students, drinking is the caloric equivalent of a 4th meal, after breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Unfortunately, the calories are the nutritionally devoid byproduct of wheat and hops, which, consumed late at night, are converted to fat as the body sleeps.  How is drinking incentivized? Frat parties, social pressures, lack of punishment, the list goes on. Hence the rise of the infamous "beer gut". Of all the reasons for the Freshmen 15, alcohol is probably the most direct cause and the most dramatic lifestyle shift upon coming to college.

Reason number two is the lack of sleep among college students. There have been many studies to show that sleep deprivation disrupts weight-regulating hormones, which directly leads to weight gain. More indirectly, less sleep leads to less energy and lower activity levels during the day, meaning less exercise and more time sedentary. Finally, people who stay up late typically enjoy eating junk food in the middle of the night. Junk food is bad enough during the day, but at least you have time to burn it off before sleeping. Food eaten late in the evening is often unused, and becomes fat as the body sleeps. This compounds the problem. Due to high social and academic pressures, which causes a high demand on time, most college students compensate by elongating their days into the evening, increasing the supply of time. Staying up late is awesome and well worth the sacrifices, but there are consequences.

The increased workload is my final reason, though there are certainly more. College students have more work and therefore spend more time studying. In other words, more time sitting and less time exercising.
Additionally, mental exercise mimics physical exercise in that it makes you feel hungry, or at least it does for me. With mental exercise you haven't burned any calories though, so you are consuming more than you have burned, leading to weight gain.

There are definitely more subtle reasons for the weight gain, but that is my analysis!

Forever and The Danforth Dining Center

for·ev·erAdverb/fəˈrevər/

1. For all future time; for always.

2. A very long time (used hyperbolically). 

Anybody who has been to the Danforth Dining Center can tell you about how crowded it is. The lines stretch back to infinity, the portions are small, and silverware is limited. Don't believe me? This morning during brunch I ate my omelette with a spoon since there were no forks. Sitting there with my friends, eating my omelette with the remarkably effective spoon, an idea struck me: The U of R should replace all the spoons and forks with sporks! Without increasing the total number of silverware, this would double the quantity of both spoons and forks, easing shortages without creating an extra load for the cleaners. The demand would be matched, with no increase in supply. Buying sporks would probably save the University money, which could then be spent elsewhere. Brilliant!

Moving on, the problem of the lines is more complex. There are a few possible solutions. One would be to decrease the number of stations. Currently, a meal typically consists of more than three plates. Since most people go up for seconds, thirds, fourths and beyond, the lines are always crowded. Eating dinner ends up taking over an hour, most of it spent standing idle waiting for food. This creates massive overlaps in the different dinner cycles. People who prefer to eat at six have to compete with the people eating at seven, those at seven with those at eight, and so on. Consolidating the stations would increase the portion size by focusing the work force, creating more satisfying plates which would de-incentivize going up for more than firsts or seconds. Hopefully this would mitigate the wait-time for food and speed up the dinner cycles, removing overlap and improving the dinner experience for everybody.

Justifying My Lack of Sleep...

This week I have gotten barely any sleep. Two nights I have stayed up into the early hours of the morning, one until 9 AM, the other until 6 AM. On more "normal" evenings, I have gone to bed typically between two and four. Don't get me wrong, I understand the need for sleep, the physical and mental benefits of sleep, and all that. I am not ignorant. Every night, I tell myself that I am tired and need to go to bed, yet every night I stay up late. It has become a habit. Here is why. I value time (don't we all?). Staying up late is a way to increase the number of hours I have to do what I want to do. My staying up is not purposeless. Each night I have found a reason to put off sleep until my body takes over and I can no longer keep my eyes open. What is the reason? People to talk to. There is something about the night that facilitates honesty and openness. The best conversations, in my opinion, occur most frequently at unnatural hours.

Now, you may be asking how this applies to Economics. It was a question I asked myself and am still asking myself as I write this sentence. Supply and demand may be a plausible link. Perhaps it could be that staying up late is a way for me to increase the supply of something I highly value. That makes sense. Incentives could also be used to explain my inability to make good decisions regarding sleep. To others it may seem like a mistake; to me, it is perfectly logical. There are some external punishments, such as the mid-afternoon crash, but nothing I can't handle. In the long-term, I am confident I will look back without regret, knowing that I made the right decision. So don't give me a curfew!