Emptying the Bottle: Late-June '11 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• It's time to stop worrying about invasive species [audio].
• Helping the homeless makes sense even if they aren't "more needy" (earlier).
• There is no such thing as a blue state or a red state.
• The use of SWAT teams by police, especially in non-violent offences.
• Why recorded, non-live, sports is so boring to watch (earlier).
• "Sleep on it" is good advice.
• Yet another reason to wash your hands after using the bathroom.
• The social economics of preschool [audio].
• The Freakonomics boys on Father's Day [audio].

As always, feel free to email me anything interesting you come across.

Poverty Is Not a Lack of Stuff

If America is rich, then what does it mean to be poor?

They don't need our money, they need our relationships and connections. From local minister (and recent Mister Diplomat guest) Hugh Hollowell.

Why Fire and Brimstone Works

Here's the study:

People’s desires to see themselves as moral actors can contribute to their striving for and achievement of a sense of self-completeness. The authors use self-completion theory to predict (and show) that recalling one’s own (im)moral behavior leads to compensatory rather than consistent moral action as a way of completing the moral self. In three studies, people who recalled their immoral behavior reported greater participation in moral activities (Study 1), reported stronger prosocial intentions (Study 2), and showed less cheating (Study 3) than people who recalled their moral behavior.

It recalibrates our moral math.

A Reason to Volunteer Abroad

Last year I described why I think many overseas missions do more harm than good. The first comment was from Lindsey Jones, who recently posted her own experience volunteering abroad:

We called the trip to Haiti a "reverse mission trip," which is meant to imply that WE, the travelers, are the ones receiving rather than providing. We affirm the Haitian culture instead of fostering dependency, and we attempt to empower those in Haiti to do the work for their own nation since they are far more equipped to do it than we ever will be. We go to learn and benefit from what Haitians can teach us, and we have no intentions of teaching or telling them anything.

This is a great argument for volunteering abroad, but with diminishing effects.

(Belated) Birthday Wishes for Empathy

A dangerous coping mechanism I learned early in life was to not need people. If you don't need others, they can't let you down. Not only was this self-destructive, I began to assume that because I seemingly didn't need people, others didn't need me. This lack of empathy had me at times wonder if I had psychopathic (abnormal lack of empathy) tendencies. Even today, I have to make a conscious effort to not fall back on that. Birthdays are one of those times. It's the one time a year where everyone is culturally obligated to celebrate you. So when my birthday came last Friday, I was reminded of my uneasy expectations. This is one of the reasons why I don't have a Facebook wall. Why I don't advertise my birthday. And why I'm infamously bad at others' birthdays. I want this to change.

This year, I was flooded by appreciation from those around me. My AP US History class threw a little surprise party (complete with "Brookie's Cookie Cake" and presidential finger puppets). My sister and her husband surprised me with a visit. And my wife surprised me by telling stories at my weekly improv show, Mister Diplomat, followed by an after party at the theater. As much as I try to remind myself how important social praise is, I was still taken back at how much these surprises meant to me. Even after my history class, I noticed a change in my attitude. I was more appreciative of the good interactions and more able to deal with the bad interactions.

This got me thinking what inspires people to do such nice things. Part of it is obligation, but to go above and beyond requires something more. That extra something is empathy. So I decided to find a way to measure my own empathy and came across this test. It gives 60 statements and asks how strongly you agree or disagree with it. Here's the scale:

0 -32 = low (people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score about 20)
33-52 = average (most women score about 47 and most men score about 42)
53-63 is above average
64-80 is very high

I scored a 19. Well below average and within the "disorder" category. I was especially alarmed when I read this article trying to redefine evil as a lack of empathy. The article discusses several facets I'd never considered. Like how more testosterone (even in the womb), usually results in less empathy. This may help explain why women are commonly regarded as more caring. However, a person's environment also matters. Children who have insecure attachment to their caretakers (abusive households, foster children, etc) often has less empathy. For me this shows how empathy multiplies empathy, especially for young people. Which shows me my role, as a teacher, in the cycle of empathy. It's even got me thinking of ways to directly focus on growing in our sensitivity to others (through public schools, through improv, through personal relationships).

The problem of empathy is bigger than just face to face interactions. There has been a fairly agreed upon assumption that empathy levels have decreased in America. I'm skeptical, but some blame this on conservatives. This could explain why political conservatives are seen as less willing to pay for the poor or why they focus more on security (from other less empathetic people). Either way I think this character trait is important for our political leaders. Perhaps an empathy test could be added to economist Alex Tabarrok's So You Think You Can Be President? game show idea.

So I am empathy deficient and it's clearly important. What I am to do? First, I need to learn from my ultra-sensitive wife, who scored a 56 on the empathy test. Part of marriage is carrying around another perspective of life. I can already see how her thoughts have improved mine. I also need to remember that even though it's difficult to change your own empathy, it's not impossible. Even knowing that I err on the side of less empathetic can help me override my default.

And finally, I think we should all have the goal of expanding our empathy circle. There's no reason not to include people in other cities, states, or countries. It certainly means putting more burden on you, but giving as much as we can to others may be what separates humans from animals. A main source of conflict is a lack on empathy. If we could implant a chip in our brain that made us feel others' pain as much as we feel ours, the world would be a much nicer place to live (though perhaps not a happier place). Until then, read the personal stories of others who lack empathy, have pity on us, and love us. You can start by commenting on this post.

The Problem with Being Rich

Since one of my most popular posts (and several since), I've tried to convince my readers that we are rich. My goal is not to show that wealth leads to happiness, but to put financial stress in perspective. If we worry less about money, perhaps we can worry more about what really matters. I recently came across this sermon from a pastor in California. In it he does two things I think should be done more in American churches. He reminds them their rich and then he warns them about it. The Bible is clear that in God's economy, wealth can be a hindrance. I'm usually pretty weary talking about controversial religious topics here (not here), not because it's not important, but because I fear trivializing such vulnerable issues. I don't necessarily endorse everything he says, and it pretty long, but I highly recommended this sermon.

Disaster Aid to Japan

The picture above is from the earthquake and resulting tsunami that have ravaged Japan. Like other international disasters, people, companies, and nations are rushing to their aid. I've been a pretty big critic of foreign aid in past. In Haiti's recent crisis I've recommended trade, not aid to help them rebuild their country. I've even pointed out the flaws of personally volunteering abroad, especially on short term non-technical trips. I stand by those ideas. However, in Japan's case, foreign aid may meet my standard of doing more long term good than harm. Not everyone agrees with me.

Reuters blogger Felix Salmon makes a compelling argument on why Japan, the world's 2nd/3rd largest economy, should not receive the limited funds of charity. Although I agree with him complaint about how we focus too much on sudden tragedies while ignoring ongoing ones, I think on Japan he might be wrong. It is Japan's stable political and economic system that makes it a good candidate for donation. The problems that normally go with foreign aid, corruption and misuse, are much less likely to occur there.

Not surprisingly, I'm not the only one supporting donations to Japan. My go-to-for-everything Tyler Cowen supports it and my local comedy theater is raising money too. That's right, for this weekend's shows 50% of all ticket sales will go to relief aid. As usual I'll be performing this Friday night at 10:30. This particular show is free, but as I'd like it, donations will be accepted at the door. The photos are from the Boston Globe's Big Picture blog. Here are some equally wonderful interactive before and after photos.

Economics of Charity

I have my share of skepticism about altruism, like in my earlier post on not giving money to panhandlers. But perhaps some selflessness results in less work and more production:

The researchers videotaped people approaching and passing through the door of a university building. The tapes were analyzed for the relationships among several behaviors: Did the first person hold the door for a follower or followers and for how long? How did the likelihood of holding the door depend on the distance between the first person at the door and whomever followed? 

“The most important result,” Rosenbaum said, “was that when someone reached the door and two people followed, the first person at the door held the door longer than if only one person followed. The internal calculation on the part of the first arriver was, ‘My altruism will benefit more people, so I’ll hold the door longer.’” 

Another finding: the followers who noticed the door-holder hastened their steps, helping to “fulfill the implicit pact” between themselves and the opener “to keep their joint effort below the sum of their individual door-opening efforts,” the authors write.

This is a very simple example, but perhaps it could be a measure of whether a charity is worth it.

Giving Life from Death Row

Written by a death row inmate:

There is no way to atone for my crimes, but I believe that a profound benefit to society can come from my circumstances. I have asked to end my remaining appeals, and then donate my organs after my execution to those who need them. But my request has been rejected by the prison authorities.

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, there are more than 110,000 Americans on organ waiting lists. Around 19 of them die each day. There are more than 3,000 prisoners on death row in the United States, and just one inmate could save up to eight lives by donating a healthy heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and other transplantable tissues.

Or we could just print organs.

Charitable Impact of Religion

Recently came across this essay describing the differences in giving between believers and non-believers:

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

And this has nothing to do with income or political ideology:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups.

Not only are they donating more often, the religion are donating more total:

The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered.

And this isn't just a measure of relgious giving to religious charities:

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

The article closes with this:

Houses of worship might teach their congregants the religious duty to give, and about both the physical and spiritual needs of the poor. Simply put, people may be more likely to learn charity inside a church, synagogue, or mosque than outside. If charity is indeed a learned behavior, it may be that houses of worship are only one means (albeit an especially efficacious one) to teach it. Secularists interested in increasing charitable giving and volunteering among their ranks might spend some effort thinking of alternative ways to foster these habits.

Hat tip to Justin Scott.

Practical Solution to Panhandling

A while back I posted my explanation for why you shouldn't give money to panhandlers. Sadly the conversation about the post was moved to Facebook (don't get me started). I'll summarize by saying a stranger threatened to beat me up and friend came to my rescue and assured everyone I'm too easy to beat up. Nonetheless, I wanted to follow up on the topic and offer a practical solution. I've always been weary of problems when the solution is to act better or smarter or more rational. To really change actions you need to change situations. Here's what I mean:

That's a donation meeter in Denver, CO. Here's the explanation from the mayor:

The donation meter program is designed to increase awareness about Denver’s Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness, and it is also an effort to redirect the money given to panhandlers into initiatives that provide meals, job training, substance abuse counseling, housing, and other programs for those in need. This grassroots campaign is projected to raise roughly $100,000 per year giving the general public a constructive way to help Denver’s homeless. “The donation meter demonstrates yet another innovative way in which this community is responding to Denver’s Road Home and our commitment to ending homelessness”

As of September 2007 Denver has eighty-six meters downtown. Within the first month they raised $2,000.

Don't Give Money to Panhandlers

Finally, a newspaper confirming what so many already know. From The Guardian:

But Thames Reach is citing "overwhelming evidence that people who beg on the street do so to buy hard drugs, particularly crack cocaine and heroin". Outreach team members estimate 80% of people begging do so to support a drug habit. The research is corroborated by the results of drug tests by the police on a group of people arrested for begging in Westminster; 70% tested positive for crack cocaine or heroin.

"Giving to people who beg is not a benign act without consequences," said Mike Nicholas, a spokesman for Thames Reach. "As an organisation that has worked with people on the street for over 30 years, we have seen many lives damaged by hard drugs and alcohol misuse. We have even lost people through overdoses in situations where a significant portion of the money they spent on drugs came from members of the public giving loose change."

Thames Reach is a London-based charity that works with the homeless. Here's how they help:

She escaped her addiction when Mark Smith, an outreach worker, persuaded her to stop living rough and get medical help. It was a huge breakthrough for someone whose life was a cycle of begging, prostitution and addiction and who had spent almost two decades living in office cupboards, a tent on marshland and in a cardboard box under a railway bridge.

"Mark won my trust, he didn't talk down to me," she said. "He was very patient and I used to look forward to seeing him, sharing his fags and having a burger."

After Mark had asked her "14 or 15 times" to think about coming off the streets, Tracy relented and is now off heroin and on methadone.

I'm certainly not trying to encourage you to not be generous with your time or your money. I simply want good intentions to be met with good results. We all desire to do good, but don't let the guilt of not giving lead you to donate to the detriment of the receiver. Here are some suggestions I've gathered:

1. The goal in helping is to move the needy towards less need.
2. Don't give cash, gifts, or even groceries (anything can be traded).
3. Relationships are the best and hardest way to change.
4. I'm afraid often we pay beggars not out of mercy, but so they will leave us alone.
5. Work is inherently good for society and the worker. Finding them a job can be a great place begin for them and your relationship.
6. Know your neighborhood so well that you know what it needs and can decipher between hustlers and the needy.
7. Donate these organizations that help the homeless. Won't make you as warm and fuzzy, but they have a better track record at making others feel warm and fuzzy (or at least warm).
8. Find the local resources in your area (churches, charities, government services). Keep their card and contact information on you.
9. If your area doesn't have a satisfactory resource, make one. 
10. Live in a neighborhood that allows you to help your neighbors. Remember we need to live with those we help.

These suggestions scare me because they require more of me than I am currently giving. Most people agree that we are at least partially responsible for those around us. Starting with family, then community, and so on. We are not only responsible for how and how much we give. Like in the personal example above described, change is hard, change is exhausting, but positive change is worthwhile.

The Curse of Volunteering Abroad

Two years ago I posted on the problems of direct country to country aid. Apparently well-intentioned Westerners are also doing harm in another way, volunteering:

The study reveals that short-term volunteer projects can do more harm than good. Wealthy tourists prevent local workers from getting much-needed jobs, especially when they pay to volunteer; hard-pressed institutions waste time looking after them and money upgrading facilities; and abused or abandoned children form emotional attachments to the visitors, who increase their trauma by disappearing back home.

There are also problems of Americans giving money to orphanages which are kept purposely squalid to elicit more pity. These:

"orphans" might have been bought from impoverished parents, coerced from loving families or simply rented for the night. An official study found just a quarter of children in these so-called orphanages have actually lost both parents. And these private ventures are proliferating fast: the numbers increased by 65% in just three years.

And don't just send donations either:

We have seen it with the dumping of cheap food and clothes, devastating industries and encouraging a dependency culture. And now we see it with "voluntourism", the fastest-growing sector of one of the fastest-growing industries on the planet.

And finally, here's why we do it:

Inevitably, the needs of impoverished communities are subverted by the demands of wealthy visitors. Alexia Nestora ran the North American arm of a major "voluntourism" group and admitted such firms loved orphanage stops. "They sell the best and are the most tearjerking projects to pitch to the media. Volunteers come away with the classic picture with an orphan and tell all their friends about their experience

I wouldn't totally negate the value of the experience of short-term mission work. I spend enough time here trying to convince you you're rich, when one trip abroad can do it much more effectively. But my fear is that this becomes a way to pay to remove global guilt instead of actually solving the problem. If you want to go on a trip, go on a trip. If you want to help specific people in need, I'm convinced the only ways are to live with them or have them live with you.

Pre-Paying Volunteers or Economists

About a month ago I got a letter in my box at school asking me to take a survey. It was from the Educational Research Associates. I hadn't heard of them, but on the web their name was regularly associated with "individualized instruction". The idea seems to be a push away from lecture oriented learning and towards alternative instructional methods (audio, video, computer-assisted instruction) freeing the teacher to focus on individuals needs. Though that idea seems very appealing to someone who uses the crude method of talking fast to get through the vast amount of information required for most subjects, it wasn't the most interesting part of the letter. This was:

That's the letter and one dollar. At the very bottom of the letter you can read why they attached a dollar. It was to encourage, or should I say guilt, me into taking the survey. Before I tell you whether I took it or not, let me share some research:

The students made 50 decisions about giving. In some cases students started with $10, and for each dollar they gave up, their (anonymous) partner in the game would get, say, $5. In this case, giving was "cheap." In others, giving was expensive (each dollar given up yielded only 20 cents for the partner).

Someone who gives a lot when it's cheap and keeps most of the pie for himself when giving is expensive focuses on efficiency: He's making sure the maximum amount is paid out to him and his partner combined. Someone who keeps 80% of the pie when it would be cheap to give is more focused on equality. Someone who always keeps everything, regardless of the price of giving, is just plain selfish, the very embodiment of the rational, self-interested Homo economicus.

It turns out that exposure to economics makes a big difference in how students split the pie, in terms of both efficiency and outright selfishness. Students assigned to classes taught by economists were more likely to give a lot when it was cheap to do so. But they were also much more likely to take the whole pie for themselves.

Here's some more:

A substantial body of research suggests that economists are less generous than other professionals and that economics students are less generous than other students. We address this question using administrative data on donations to social programs by students at the University of Washington. Our data set allows us to track student donations and economics training over time in order to distinguish selection effects from indoctrination effects. We find that economics majors are less likely to donate than other students and that there is an indoctrination effect for non-majors but not for majors.

There some evidence that this may be a selection effect, but I'm skeptical. Tim Harford does a decent job defending economists, but I'm not sure it will convince everyone. So back to the original question, what do you think, did the $1 bribe work? Or did I take the money and run? The latter. I didn't take the survey. Here's a couple reasons why: 1) I spent the money on "generous jeans Friday", which donates the money to needy students for graduation robes, field trip fees, etc. Perhaps that was enough to silence my conscience. 2) Maybe the bribe itself kept me from completing it. Like my previous post on paying donors to give blood, maybe the low price made me think my input wasn't that valuable. 3) Maybe I'm just not your normal teacher.  When I went to look at the site just now all I saw was this message:

Thank you for accessing the World Geography Survey. We have had an overwhelming response and the field time is now closed. We hope you will consider participating in the future.

Thank you for your interest.

Apparently the average teacher hasn't taken enough economics. Or maybe I've taken too much.

Trade Off Between Charity and Employment

Two years ago I posted about how wages are a great signal of where you can do the most good. The more you produce, the more you get paid, the better off society is. Apparently, the richest man in the world agrees:

Billionaire Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world according to Forbes magazine, said he’d rather spend money on projects that create jobs than give away his cash as part of a fight against poverty.

“The only way to fight poverty is with employment,” Slim said at a conference in Sydney today. “Trillions of dollars have been given to charity in the last 50 years, and they don’t solve anything.”

I'm certainly not against all charity, but I continue to feel the cost of it, especially in the hands of entrepreneurs famous for creating wealth.

Worthwhile Sentences on Charity

From Mother Teresa: “If I look at the masses I will never act, but if I look at the one I will."

From  Liz Lemon: "words are the first step on the way to deeds"

From Amazon founder Jeff Bezos: "it's harder to be kind than clever"

From the Boston Globe: "My argument is that the cause of poverty has been poverty."

From Robert A. Heinlein: "Progress doesn't come from early risers — progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things."

From previous worthwhile sentences.

Takeaways from Predictably Irrational, Part II

I recently finished Dan Ariely's behavioral economics book, Predictably Irrational. You can read Dan's current writing at his blog. Here is part one in a multi-part series of my takeaways from the book. Here is the next part, focusing mostly on the different kinds of exchanges:

There are two worlds of interaction, the world of social norms and the world of market norms. An example of social norm is a friend helping a friend move a couch. Market norm would be hiring a professional mover.

There can be unexpected problems s in the world of market norms. It was the famous efficiency expert Frederick Taylor who said there is "hardly a competent workman can be found who does not devote a considerable amount of time to studying just how slowly he can work and still convince his employer that he is going at a good pace."

In fact, social norms can actually be more productive. There's a famous story (couldn't find a link) about an attempt to increase the amount of blood donation by paying givers. Surprisingly, less blood was donated. The good feelings that came with donating were replaced by a payment too low to compensate for the lost feelings.

The market and social worlds have a hard time existing together, because when combined the normal pattern of interaction become unclear. Remember my earlier post on loaning friends money? The example in the book was a story about a day care that charged a fine for parents for late pickups and actually got more late pickups (because people didn't feel guilty anymore). After they removed the charge, the late pickups increased even more (because people still didn't feel guilty and now didn't have to pay). Here's my earlier post on moral math.

However, gifts (not cash) can be a way to use market incentives within a social norm would. That's why blood donors get t-shirts and cookies. But be sure not to mention how much the goodies cost.

Another problem with market norms is they make you feel more self-reliant. Think about how helpful you are at home without pay, but how favors at work are bothersome. You assume other people are just as self-reliant as you making you less willing to help others.

This helps explain why businesses want to harness the power of social norms. It's why State Farm is a "good neighbor" and Johnson & Johnson is "the family company". It also helps explain why companies originally gave sick days, health insurance, and other employee perks. They are trying to make you loyal to them. The only problem is they expect you to treat them with the same loyalty. If you nickel and dime employees/customers after you've made them feel like family they treat you not like a greedy corporation, but a like a deceptive uncle.

These social norms are also important for the most valued members of our society. It would be expensive to pay people to run into burning buildings. Or to take down and armed mugger. Or to go to war. Yet firefighters, policemen, and soldiers are plentiful. It's not just because we pay them with money, but because we pay them with respect. They get parades, discounts, and drinks bought for them at bars.

I've always been skeptical of what Dan Ariely calls social norms in the marketplace, but this book showed me their value.

Moral Math

In yesterday's explanation for why I'm weary of corporate charity and how we can improve it, I hinted at something that has bothered me for a while. When people do one good thing, they often let themselves off the hook for other good things. Not until I came across this article did I have the vocabulary to articulate what I meant:

The academic name for such quizzical behavior is moral licensing. It seems that we have a good/bad balance sheet in our heads that we're probably not even aware of. For many people, doing good makes it easier -- and often more likely -- to do bad. It works in reverse, too: Do bad, then do good.

We see everyday when people pull up to their organic food store in a Hummer or when we feel better about leaving energy efficient light bulbs on longer. But it also has less innocent repercussions like:

a study showing that voters given an opportunity to endorse Barack Obama for president were more likely to later favor white people for job openings.

In another experiment shopper were give the option to shop at either:

online stores that carry mainly green products or mainly conventional products. Then they played a game that allowed them to cheat to make more money. The shoppers from the green store were more dishonest than those at the conventional store, which brought them higher earnings in the game.

This is connected to my skeptical attitude toward charitable giving in general. It seems the best way to avoid this mental trap is either to account for everything you do, so you can accurately weigh the costs and benefits, or simply make your kind acts second nature so they stop being accounted.

Where Charity Meets Profit

The Dirty South Improv Theater, where I perform and teach, is well known for supporting the local community of Carrboro-Chapel Hill. From the annual Y Laugh fundraising campaign to special shows for non-profits like a used-bicycle collective and a youth mentor-advocate program. For all of this month, 20% of the ticket sales will go to the local Boys and Girls Club. The reason behind any business doing this is two fold: 1) as a form of advertising and brand image, 2) support causes the boss feels are worthwhile.

I've always questioned both of those motivations. The first feels like a deceptive way to convince the public your product is valuable. For example BP recently announced it would donate any revenues from collected oil in the Gulf to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Any energy spent making it seem like your company is good, is energy not spent actually making your company good. The second motivation also makes me uncomfortable because if the bosses want to donate money, they should pay themselves more and do it. Why involve the company, the employees, and the stock holders?

My question was recently answered when Tyler Cowen shared an interesting research finding. When customers at an amusement park were asked to buy pictures of themselves on a roller coaster only 0.5% paid the $12.95 asking price. Next they allowed customers to pay what they wanted. Sales went up to 8.4%, but the average payment was only $0.92. Later they were told that half of the $12.95 went to charity. This barely changed the amount of payers. Finally, the two ideas were put together. Customers could pay what they wanted, but half would go to charity. Suddenly, 4.5% of the customers bought a photo, nine times the original number, each paying an average of $5.33.

Charitable donations increased and so did profits. Not counting any loss due to consumer guilt, it was a net gain for all. Businesses made more and looked good doing it. Charities got more and people felt better giving it. This also allows the boss to give to his desired charity with a positive impact on his company. Until I can convince theater owner Zach Ward to change the pricing, you can still go see shows all this month and donate any extra at the door. This weekend marks the end of our two special sketch shows, Harvey Wallbanger and We Need A Hero.

Hat Tip to Calvin Coolidge

"After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world."

"We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism."

Go here for even more on our 30th president, Calvin Coolidge.