Free Shipping: Over-Valued, but not Purely a Gimmick

NPR had a good story "There's Always A Cost Associated With Free Shipping". The story partly suggests that free shipping is ultimately of a gimmick or come-on--at the end of the day, there is no free lunch, total product cost is what matters. I agree, marketing theory says, find some product cost (or other attribute) that consumers over-value (or over-dislike), and play that up for an asymmetric benefit. "Free Shipping" fits that profile.

I have a few counter-arguments for this specific case, though. First, historically merchants have sometimes treated "shipping and handling" as a profit center. I.e., advertise a low price, and only once the consumer is deep into checkout, reveal an inflated S&H charge. It is form of bait-and-switch.

Second, even if merchants are playing fair, and treating shipping as only a pass-through cost, it can be hard for consumers to predict what the shipping cost will be. Resulting in added cognitive burden, and the risk of spending time shopping and going through checkout, only to get a big surprise at the end.

So free shipping takes both of the above issues off the table.

(There are significant environmental issues associated with free 2-day shipping, I thought this was a good summary. It would be nice if Amazon led the way by pushing the green angle on not taking free 2-day if you don't need it--they already offer some credits, which is a small start.)

A Different Kind of Nationalism for the USA?

09/15/22 UPDATE: Rep Sean Casten has a kindred proposal. 

12/18/22 UPDATE: This seminar organized by Bruce Schneier is one of the few (only?) times I have come across a similar-in-spirit suggestion that maybe it no longer makes sense to ""organize our representative units by geography". 

*************

"Nationalism" is in the news lately, in the US and elsewhere. I view myself as an American nationalist, but in a much different sense than the term is usually used. I am a "nationalist" in that my allegiance to country is far, far ahead of allegiance to state or locality. So naturally I would like to see a Congress that is constituted to reflect national interests more, and local interests less. I propose a thought experiment in that regard.

What if half of Congressional representation were de-coupled from geography? The goal being that these congresspeople would represent the interests of the entire country, not a particular state or geographical district. How could that work, and would it be a good thing?

The concept that I propose is for a national congressional district to be defined by randomly assigning voters to said district. So instead of districts that average 710,000 people within a given state, assign 710,000 voters from anywhere in the US randomly to the district. If I am right, the national congressperson would be far more inclined to take a national view, rather than stubbornly advocating for local interests--even when those interests diverge from their core beliefs.

There are of course tons of details to work out. A critical one is--who is permitted to run to represent a given district? I think that is straightforward--a person can run for the district to which they have been randomly assigned. That is their district(!)

So that speaks to some of the how. Would it be a good thing? I think it could be. Our current political system is broken in so many ways. An underlying flaw that gets way too little discussion, is the fact that 50 states, of widely varying populations, is a broken and outdated system. First, there is the somewhat widely-acknowledged flaw of size--where voters in small states have vastly disproportionate voice. There is also the dysfunction of seniority--if a given states' congressperson happens to be senior, they will be in a position to cater to the interests of that state--completely contrary to the national interest. Finally, I am pretty sure that no other democracy has gone 100 years--let alone 250--without revising its administrative districts (our U.S. states). It is miracle that this kind of man-made boundary drawing worked okay as long as it did, but it is way past time for a re-do.

I suspect a major, hidden benefit is that the national Congressional reps would be the moral exemplars. Their views would strongly signal what is best for the country, not a parochial interest.

DISCLAIMER. This is a thought-experiment. I don't expect it to happen. I certainly haven't through through all the details. But clearly the status quo is not working. The two, related things I would hope to get people thinking about are: 1) We would be well-served to look for ways to put nation before locality; 2) Closely related, the default assumption that our 250-year-old legacy of states is the ideal or natural way of doing things should be vigorously challenged.