The Opportunity Cost of a Blown Nap

Another shopper and I approached two unoccupied cashiers simultaneously. The decision about who transacted with whom seemed arbitrary and was settled nearly instantaneously without verbal exchange. I went left, she went right. But seconds later I realized we’d made a mistake.

I was pushing a wide, double stroller with a sleeping toddler as cargo (Fraktion freight of a different sort?). A support column in the center of the left checkout aisle I selected prevented my entry. Heroic contortions of the over-sized stroller might have permitted passage but would have risked waking the toddler. I know well the opportunity cost of a ruined nap so I kept the stroller steady and took the only checkout option available to me.

Thus, I moved from the left to the right cashier and was now in line behind the other shopper who could have used either checkout (she was pushing a relatively narrow shopping cart, not a double-wide stroller). The checkout I vacated was now empty with an idle cashier. Clearly I would have been better off if we had made the opposite assignment of cashiers to shoppers. At the moment I had this thought it wasn’t too late to do so as the other shopper had not yet removed any items from her cart.

A Pareto improving change in the allocation of cashiers to shoppers was possible! That is, I would be better off if the other shopper and I switched, she to the left and me to the right cashier. She would be no worse off. In fact, I could compensate her for making the change. How much were the few minutes of time saved by making the switch worth to me? A quarter? A dime? How much would she require to spend ten seconds switching? A nickle? A penny? This market should clear. But it didn’t.

That’s because we don’t normally think this way. It’s a little weird. Knowing as much I would not (and did not) offer her cash to switch. The most I would have done is politely point out that I was unable to use the other cashier and ask if she would mind changing. But I didn’t even do that. And the reason is that I was enjoying the thoughts I just shared.

With a sleeping child in the stroller and a rare quiet moment in a busy weekend my mind went into economist mode. I had a good time and would not have traded the experience for even a dollar. Paradoxically the allocation of cashier resources to shoppers turned out to be efficient after all. My delay provided an opportunity to think about its inefficiency, turning the loss into a gain. Moreover, the opportunity cost of a toddler’s blown nap has been revealed. As she slept my mind was free to compose this post. I typed it up later as the well-rested and happy child enjoyed the stickers and crayons that I had purchased during the shopping trip through which she had slept. Some things even (or especially) an incidental economist cannot improve.

Share on twitter
Share on facebook
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on email

Hidden information below

Subscribe

* indicates required
Email Format