Just a Quick Poll

[dbest671]

That's an assumption, perhaps he's willing and able to drive himself, or just didn't beat you to offering to car pool. There's nothing there that says he's a moocher, just that carpooling in that situation is less wasteful overall (and hence cheaper in total than both of you driving on your own).

It's cheaper for the one who is getting the ride... that and you are responsible for him if you were to get into an accident.

Has he even offered to help pay for gas?

[NickS VR4]

Public transportation not available?

[futurevr4man]

common courtesy to pay for your share

[rlacasse1]

1) Sorry for the multi-thread posting, I don't know why it posted it three times instead of just correcting. Derp. xD

2) Ass, gas or grass is slogan off of a bumper sticker so I figured I'd put it that way. Its interesting because you guys overwhelmingly expect compensation for not doing anything other than what you'd be doing anyways, just because it makes someone else's life easier.

So it's "interesting" that we expect compensation. But it's not "interesting" that your friend "overwhelmingly expects" a free ride every day. What's worse, the person asking to be paid or the person that's mooching?

And to add to that. Why does he get to cut his cost and expect you to not cut yours as well?

[AgentOblivious]

You must be a liberal arts college attendee.

If you want to get technical:

-Added weight of degenerate co-worker who can't drive himself to work like a grown adult = less MPG (oh no, the environment!!)
-Added wear & tear to passenger side of vehicle by aforementioned chuckle head. Resale value goes down.
-Added wear & tear on suspension parts due to fat ass riding shot gun.

My points have a very small effect, I know. Doesn't mean I'm not right.

You're arguing minutiae which is outside the confines of the hypothetical situation to justify your choice, even though its not needed. :P The difference in gas consumption and wear and tear could be mitigated by just hitting consecutive green lights as opposed to idling, or if the occupant were female as opposed to male, there's a higher chance (generally speaking) that you'd drive less erratically and at a slower speed, which could lower the wear and tear as well as the fuel consumption. :P We can argue all that but its completely missing the point of the exercise. There's no right or wrong answer here, it just goes to show that we don't actually act rationally when it comes to economic decisions.



Fyi I'm working on a double major in economics and psychology at a school that's nowhere near a liberal arts college. :P

It's cheaper for the one who is getting the ride... that and you are responsible for him if you were to get into an accident.

Has he even offered to help pay for gas?

Its assumed that insurance costs don't change because you're car pooling, hence the "it doesn't cost you anything extra". I've purposely left it so that you don't know the other guy's expectation as to what he'd have to pay, if anything, so that you make your decision without that affecting it.

Public transportation not available?

It could be, we're simply considering the choice of giving him a ride or not and at what price.

So it's "interesting" that we expect compensation. But it's not "interesting" that your friend "overwhelmingly expects" a free ride every day. What's worse, the person asking to be paid or the person that's mooching?

Nobody said anything about what your neighbour expects, its only what you expect out of such an activity.

Its interesting in the sense that whether you give him a ride or not, it costs you the same, so you're no worse off if you give him a ride than if you don't, but his situation improves, and yet you expect to be compensated because he's better off, so you're expecting him to share his gains with you.

Given only the option of giving him a ride (with no compensation) or refusing to carpool with him, it seems like you guys would force him to be more wasteful out of fairness.

And to add to that. Why does he get to cut his cost and expect you to not cut yours as well?

You're making the mistake of counting sunk costs. Whether you give him a ride or not what you pay in order to benefit from the transportation to and from work hasn't changed. Gas isn't cheaper, the car isn't cheaper, so that money is paid out already, its gone regardless. What you are doing in effect is profiting from him tagging along. It sounds kinda bad I guess to put it that way but there's the argument that having social conventions such as expecting to share gas costs in such a case builds trust and helps crush resentment because you're seeing someone else having to share the burden.

[rlacasse1]

Well, I don't know about you, but I try to cut costs when I can. Yeah, it's not going to be cheaper if he wasn't there. But since he wants a ride, for whatever reason it may be, I will try to cut my costs as well. It only makes sense in my mind. And you're right, you're not worse off. But if you have a chance to be better off, and you don't take advantage of that, then you are pretty much worse off than you could be.

I use to carpool with a guy in a similar situation. Lived damn near next door. I really didn't care a whole lot about getting gas money off of him, but since he offered I accepted it. Usually the person hitching a ride is courteous enough to pay. I think that's where the expectation comes from. Is you typically expect the courtesy.

Now if it was someone that was flat broke and didn't have a vehicle and just started a new job with me, I wouldn't care about it at all.

[stealthify]

I'm the only one so far that voted for option #4.

So, clearly this question will lead into something more elaborate later on. However, the way I see it, and in this particular situation, why not let the neighbor tag along?

Sure, we can argue that you might pay a few extra cents per trip to/from work in reduced MPG, wear/tear on the car, etc -- but what do we gain by doing this? A connection with someone? A neighbor that might return the favor if we're in a bind one day and need it? Having some company? Hell, what about just the simple, reassuring feeling that you're doing something kind to help another human-being?

Based on the facts we're given, this passenger is a neighbor and a co-worker. For the Christian folk, what does the Bible say about loving/helping your neighbor? Sense of community? No doubt you have to see him on a regular basis; perhaps you'll make a new friend. Would you charge your friend for gas?

Understandably, we live in a give and take world. We expect to be compensated for the things we do. Sometimes, that may mean financial reciprocity. But, not always.

PS - AO, last time I checked, Psychology is a Liberal Arts study. However, I'm not sure what this has to do with the situation. Interesting to see the responses though.

[IPD]

shaun and AO are fucking hippies. the only way you should give someone a ride for ABSOLUTELY NO COST to that person is if it's like a 1-time emergency thing, or you derive some kind of fringe benefit from it (emotional/moral boost, chance to get in somebody's pants, promise of future reciprocation, or ability to take a tax-write-off by calling it "charity").

fuck freeloaders.

[stealthify]

shaun and AO are fucking hippies.

Don't group me with AO

I respect those that feel they need to be monetarily compensated for something like this - but that's not me. Have some respect for the preferences of others. What I said, exactly, is that there's much more to be gained by helping others than a few extra bucks in your pocket. And that's the kind of world we live in; most people expect to gain something. I have a feeling that's what this thread is all about.

With that said, it's very rare to find someone that doesn't have their self-interests in mind. If you do, though, then good for them.

[IPD]

Don't group me with AO

I respect those that feel they need to be monetarily compensated for something like this - but that's not me. Have some respect for the preferences of others. What I said, exactly, is that there's much more to be gained by helping others than a few extra bucks in your pocket. And that's the kind of world we live in; most people expect to gain something. I have a feeling that's what this thread is all about.

With that said, it's very rare to find someone that doesn't have their self-interests in mind. If you do, though, then good for them.

shaun, the problem with this world is that NOT ENOUGH people have their self-interests in mind. and it is BECAUSE of that lack of self-interest (and commensurate generosity) that freeloaders exist. that's why i expect AO and i to differ vehemently on this issue--because he favors all kinds of safety nets, and i prefer pulling the rug out from under everyone. debt of 100+% of our GDP says that we have TOO MANY safety nets, and that the system is bleeding itself dry.

i've made all these arguments before. i had a LENGTHY diatribe about objectivism on this site (which i can't even see any more--thanks to the political-section perma-ban). the gist is, there's no GUARANTEE that karma will pay you back for good deeds. it usually works for people who commit bad deeds, but not good ones. now if you can live happily with never being repaid for random acts of kindness (apart from a smug sense of self) then that's fine. i myself would be pissed to high hell if my car broke down, and said neighbor started driving to work in HIS car, and didn't give me rides (just a for instance).

splitting the cost NOW means that nobody can legitimately feel "jilted" or "used" down the line. the score remains settled.

p.s.
it's no wonder our nation likes living in debt--we've long since established that "debt" is an acceptable standard.