4 ms·

> One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. This is a

> One day someone's job will be to stand in the queue for me to buy me tickets to Wimbledon tennis tournaments or a new iPhone during a launch event. This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead.

dustinmoris 7y ago
I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. Was probably the same case for people cooking your food, or making you a sandwich, or someone walking your dog or looking after your cat whilst you are on holiday, or coming into your house and doing the gardening. But once the times have changed where there's an actual demand for someone to stand in the queue in front of an Apple Store, then I am sure the perception will change too. Maybe the "Uber Driver" or "Digital Agent" is too busy during business hours but can afford someone else to pick up a phone for him. There's a physical limit to how many people can buy the phone from a shop, so it's not going to be a profession where anyone can do it, you'll probably end up paying quite a bit for someone who potentially has personal connections to the shop owner or gets some preferential spot in the queue so they can charge a higher fee whereas someone who is not at the same level might charge very little but also end up at spot #1001 in the queue and actually not being able to get your desired tickets. You see what I mean? We can't write off this new market when we don't know yet what it will look like. All I can say, wherever there is need there is money and the more mature a market gets the more $$$ there is to make. Being a professional who can secure you the first iPhone during a launch event can be a hugely respected job one day.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having people wait for hours in a queue apart from satisfying the retailer's vanity. It's degrading to the prospective customer personally standing in line, much less a mere hired agent. The economically sound move would be to price the items at a point where there is no shortage, but if the company wants to create the appearance of a shortage at artificially low prices for dubious marketing reasons then they should just hold a lottery for the opportunity to purchase rather than making people waste their limited time in line.
  - gowld 7y ago
    Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
      - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
        If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
        nybble41 7y ago
        I'm not going to dispute your point that the lottery would be less likely to favor people with more free time compared to the queue, but I don't see why a company would care about that. Keep in mind that the context was "get the latest iPhone on launch day", not something with significant audience interaction like a concert. Keeping prices low to generate hype and make themselves look popular is one thing but the goal is still to attract people with money and connections in order to sell more product and build the brand. I'm not convinced this is about equality, either. The time-intensive approach disfavors the lower-middle class the most; on the <em>very</em> low end of the income scale you have a lot of time on your hands on account of not having a job, but for that reason probably can't afford the latest iPhone even at a scarcity-inducing discount. Above a certain point you have enough money to determine your own working hours and can afford to spend time waiting in line for something you really want.
xboxnolifes 7y ago
>This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. It's not really artificial, it's the product of having first-come-first-served instead of highest-bidder products. >The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead. Ignoring the choice of FCFS instead of highest bidder, this is just what work is. Someone is offering their time in exchange for monetary compensation.
- gowld 7y ago
  Artificial means created by people. Choosing first-come-first-served meets that definition. A queue is an artificial object.
- esotericn 7y ago
  It is precisely artificial. Yes, it is work. Degrading work, because it's completely pointless. I could pay someone to move the gravel on my drive from one side to the other over and over again for a year. Someone would probably accept that if I structured it as an 8-hour job with health insurance etc. It'd be the most mind-numbingly boring thing ever.
avgDev 7y ago
Agreed! I always thought standing in line to get something was odd. I tried doing it for a game once, and I felt miserable. What a total waste of time. Most game studios fixed it, by going digital and allowing preloads. Doing that as a job? Oof. 0 skills required, just good knees. Definitely, sounds like a wise career move./s
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

dustinmoris 7y ago

I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. Was probably the same case for people cooking your food, or making you a sandwich, or someone walking your dog or looking after your cat whilst you are on holiday, or coming into your house and doing the gardening. But once the times have changed where there's an actual demand for someone to stand in the queue in front of an Apple Store, then I am sure the perception will change too. Maybe the "Uber Driver" or "Digital Agent" is too busy during business hours but can afford someone else to pick up a phone for him. There's a physical limit to how many people can buy the phone from a shop, so it's not going to be a profession where anyone can do it, you'll probably end up paying quite a bit for someone who potentially has personal connections to the shop owner or gets some preferential spot in the queue so they can charge a higher fee whereas someone who is not at the same level might charge very little but also end up at spot #1001 in the queue and actually not being able to get your desired tickets. You see what I mean? We can't write off this new market when we don't know yet what it will look like. All I can say, wherever there is need there is money and the more mature a market gets the more $$$ there is to make. Being a professional who can secure you the first iPhone during a launch event can be a hugely respected job one day.

nybble41 7y ago
> I really think that this is only seen as degrading today, because it's not needed yet. The point was that it's not needed period. There is no point in having people wait for hours in a queue apart from satisfying the retailer's vanity. It's degrading to the prospective customer personally standing in line, much less a mere hired agent. The economically sound move would be to price the items at a point where there is no shortage, but if the company wants to create the appearance of a shortage at artificially low prices for dubious marketing reasons then they should just hold a lottery for the opportunity to purchase rather than making people waste their limited time in line.
- gowld 7y ago
  Pricing at a non-shortage point is even worse. Waiting in a queue means that some poor people have a chance at getting the product. Auctioning the desirable product guarantees they won't. Lottery is perhaps better, but it's probably easier to game a lottery than a line, since a rich person can buy many tickets.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    As to the first point, it depends on what you're trying to achieve. That's why I mentioned the lottery option. You can limit the lottery to one entry per person and make the ticket, and the item itself, non-transferrable; anything less can be gamed to favor those with disposable funds, including queues. (After all, that's the subject of this thread.) However, I think that if someone took the time they'd otherwise have been wasting in lines and used it productively instead then they could probably earn enough to afford the higher market-clearing price, and society would be better for it.
    - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
      If you do a lottery you're still more likely to have a higher proportion of folks with more money and less time than vice versa than you would if you force people to stand in line, and if you verify that the attendees actually stood in line you make it more difficult to game. Re: your second point, I can't imagine that's accurate given the extreme differences that exist in disposable income and earning ability. Edit: I'm realizing now that you may have been more focused on retail than events, in which case I suppose the identity verification option that I'm discussing I admit seems a bit stranger / less relevant.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        I'm not going to dispute your point that the lottery would be less likely to favor people with more free time compared to the queue, but I don't see why a company would care about that. Keep in mind that the context was "get the latest iPhone on launch day", not something with significant audience interaction like a concert. Keeping prices low to generate hype and make themselves look popular is one thing but the goal is still to attract people with money and connections in order to sell more product and build the brand. I'm not convinced this is about equality, either. The time-intensive approach disfavors the lower-middle class the most; on the <em>very</em> low end of the income scale you have a lot of time on your hands on account of not having a job, but for that reason probably can't afford the latest iPhone even at a scarcity-inducing discount. Above a certain point you have enough money to determine your own working hours and can afford to spend time waiting in line for something you really want.

xboxnolifes 7y ago

>This is always going to be degrading because it's literally an artificial meaningless thing. It's not really artificial, it's the product of having first-come-first-served instead of highest-bidder products. >The operators could just do this for a fee, but they're forcing someone to burn their time instead. Ignoring the choice of FCFS instead of highest bidder, this is just what work is. Someone is offering their time in exchange for monetary compensation.

gowld 7y ago
Artificial means created by people. Choosing first-come-first-served meets that definition. A queue is an artificial object.
esotericn 7y ago
It is precisely artificial. Yes, it is work. Degrading work, because it's completely pointless. I could pay someone to move the gravel on my drive from one side to the other over and over again for a year. Someone would probably accept that if I structured it as an 8-hour job with health insurance etc. It'd be the most mind-numbingly boring thing ever.

avgDev 7y ago

Agreed! I always thought standing in line to get something was odd. I tried doing it for a game once, and I felt miserable. What a total waste of time. Most game studios fixed it, by going digital and allowing preloads. Doing that as a job? Oof. 0 skills required, just good knees. Definitely, sounds like a wise career move./s

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]