Wait, $45 To Stow Your Carry-on?!

Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/vnvlain/473144228/">vnvlain</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Matt Yglesias tries to convince me that charging $45 to stow a carry-on bag on my next flight isn’t such a bad thing:

Everyone outraged by Spirit Airlines’ decision to start trying to charge an extra fee for people who want to use the overhead bins — including Chuck Schumer who seems to be aiming for a quasi-regulatory solution or else a way to get on camera — should consider Paul Krugman’s argument that price-discrimination in monopolist-dominated markets is socially optimal.

Technically, I don’t really disagree. Ever since deregulation, airlines have been the poster children for rampant price discrimination. Everybody says they hate it, but the fact that airlines have practically been driven out of business by their inability to make money suggests that consumers have done pretty well by it. What’s more, Spirit’s bag fee has all sorts of excellent arguments in its favor. It gives you an incentive to pack light. It gives you an incentive not to slow everyone down loading and unloading the overhead bins. It lets people fly extra cheap if they’re willing to fly with no baggage — as my grandmother used to do. (Don’t ask.)

And yet….there’s a social aspect to this that gnaws at me a little bit. A while back there was a minor blog thread that made the rounds over the issue of free bread at restaurants. Economically, this is inefficient. People eat more bread than they really want because it’s “free.” People who don’t want bread subsidize everyone else. Etc.

All true. But one of the primary causes of personal stress is decisionmaking, and modern life jacks that up every time we’re forced to make yet another goddam decision. Do we really want to have to decide if we want the bread or do we just want to enjoy dinner? Do we want a dozen different options on our flight, or would we rather just buy a ticket that includes all the usual stuff? Should credit card apps have 30 pages of legalese attached to them or would a few simple rules about interest rates and annual fees be enough?

Choice is good. Most of the time we want it, and economically it’s often beneficial. But it can also hide things and make prices hard to compare.  Is the Spirit flight really cheaper? Better do a close comparison! Is dinner at Joe’s the same price as dinner at Mary’s? If Joe charges for bread, maybe not. And that cheap credit card might not be as cheap as you think if your rate suddenly gets jacked up because you paid your water bill late and didn’t realize that made a difference. Not having to worry about that stuff might be worth a few dollars.

Anyway, just a thought. Cheap flights are good, but sometimes there’s such a thing as a market that’s too efficient. We might all find ourselves a little bit happier and a little bit less frazzled if prices were a few dollars higher and, in return, there were a few less decisions forced on us every day.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate