14 ms·

This seems like an obvious improvement. There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you

This seems like an obvious improvement. There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have. Think about it rationally: If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library. With the new system you get immediate use of the library once you turn in your overdue book. The benefit for returning books is much higher.

nickysielicki 5y ago
Think about it rationally: If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books.
- blendergeek 5y ago
  > Think about it rationally: I will try to do that. > If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books. Under the new system, if you have any overdue books, you cannot check out new books. So you cannot "check out as many books as you would like". You can return them at your leisure. A system of library fines works best under the following conditions: * For most people who use the library, there is only a very small subset of books that interest them. * And these people want to keep the books long term. * And these people can afford library fines. People who are interested in only a few books, want them long term, and can afford library fines generally buy their books at book stores rather than stealing them from libraries. The system recently adopted by New York City will still work if most library users * are interested in a selection of books greater than the maximum number that can be checked out at a time * and regularly want to switch out books * and cannot afford library fines I will assume that the New York City Library System knows who their users are. Generally people who use public library fit into the poorer class of people and the people who need the library the most are those who cannot afford books and therefore regularly checkout new books. For these people, the system adopted by the New York Library will still motivate them to return their books. Yes, some people who can afford books will steal from the library. Well, if they ever want to check out new books, they will need to return their old books (and maybe the New York Library has done the math and decided that a small enough percentage of the population is book thieves that this will work)
bowmessage 5y ago
This is an "improvement" in the same way that abolishing police reduces the arrest rate.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  But libraries do see more books being returned with these systems. Telling someone that they will be automatically able to check out new books if they return the ones they have is really effective in practice. As opposed to the old system where you have to both return the book and pay money so lots of poor people would just ignore the library.
- elviejo 5y ago
  It really, is* an improvement the same way that netflix, when rented dvds, didn't allow you to take any other dvd until you returned the one you already had. That strategy was enough to bankrupt blockbuster. So it can work for NY public libraries. Maybe if blockbuster had been willing to forgo the late fees income stream they would still exist today.
  - SilasX 5y ago
    Wait, what? Blockbuster did end late fees, and it was widely regarded as a disaster, because then people took their sweet time returning rentals (above and beyond the lost revenue): https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39332696 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39332696 >Blockbuster tried dropping its late fees a few years ago, but that didn't work out well because it kept the most popular DVDs out of its stores for long stretches.
    - RussianCow 5y ago
      I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager a guess that interest in rental movies is mostly concentrated around a handful of titles at any given moment, whereas interest in library books is more evenly dispersed. This means that two people are much less likely to want to rent the same book at the same time, as opposed to the same movie.
kazinator 5y ago
The books are destroyed; no what. Late fees: pay small fee, borrow books. No late fees: pay for replacement, borrow books. I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended. If you don't return books for an excessively long period, like six months, their value is automatically deducted from your deposit on top of accrued late fees; then you may keep the books.
- siquick 5y ago
  > I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended. One of the most blinkered views I've seen on HN. Who exactly do you think benefits from libraries the most? It sure isn't people who have a lazy $200 sitting around.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kazinator 5y ago
    The library could actually pay a reasonable interest on that, say, a bit better than a bank account. So there would be no downside in parking the 200 there rather than a bank account.
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      Except having to front the library $200 you don’t have.
      - kazinator 5y ago
        If you don't have $200, why do you need to take books out, and where is it that you're taking them? What's wrong with reading them right there?
KorematsuFredt 5y ago
Depends on the book. If the book is less valuable then membership costs yes, else people might make a business out of selling overdue books.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  > else people might make a business out of selling overdue books How many books can you sign out at once? Like five or something? You think people are going to make a business out of selling five books on a street corner? How much do you think they’ll fetch given they’re already free at the library? Lunacy.
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Looks like 50 unless you're a teacher. Still not worth the trouble trying to find someone to buy a copy of Harry Potter that says "property of NYPL" on it when they're a dime a dozen already. https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials
  - KorematsuFredt 5y ago
    Again depends on the book. Some textbooks might be fairly valuable which students might sell to their juniors after they are done with its use.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  The replacement fees aren't changing at all. This is solely about eliminating late fees. If someone is going to be stealing books from the library and selling them under the new system, the incentives to do that would be exactly the same as under the old system.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  None of the books you could check out on a library card would be worth it. You'd be checking out circulation material, not special collections items (rare manuscripts and such), and they'd all be clearly marked as library materials, so of much lower value on the secondary market than a regular used copy of the same book would be.
ejb999 5y ago
>>There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have. You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.
- RussianCow 5y ago
  This is already possible today, and yet it doesn't appear to be an issue plaguing libraries.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  This change is only about late fees. People who don't return books are still subject to replacement fees under the new system.
- LaMarseillaise 5y ago
  In what way does the late-fee policy prevent this?
- jcrawfordor 5y ago
  I don't know about NYPL but where I live getting a library card requires more ID than registering to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have measures in place against patrons opening multiple accounts.
- reitzensteinm 5y ago
  So what's to stop you doing this today? If you're able to use fake names why would you care about fines that can't be tracked to you?
- akudha 5y ago
  There will always be a small subset of people who will abuse any system. Unless/Until this becomes a big enough problem, going after these people isn’t necessary, in my opinion. NYPL can always bring the fines back, if/wham it does become a big enough issue
jcrawfordor 5y ago
I think this just matches human behavior a lot more too in terms of how late books happen - usually just because someone forgot or it was inconvenient to return it on time. Eliminating late fines and instead blocking checking out more books means that the person is incentivized to bring the book with them next time they go to the library, so that they are rewarded with being allowed check something else out. Late fines tend to do the opposite... once they realize the book is past due, they are incentivized to avoid going back to the library, because once they do they'll be punished. The incentive of being able to check out another book is likely not enough to overcome having to pay even a relatively small fine. It seems fairly intuitive to me that this creates a perverse incentive that will often discourage people from returning books at all, rather than encouraging returning them on time. As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix. More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.
nemo44x 5y ago
Back in the day when I was a poor college student I rented a movie from a local video store. It was an old movie and because of my laziness I failed to return it on time. But eventually did and they wanted a $40 late fee, which was a lot of money for me at the time. A new copy would have cost less. So I stopped being a customer and went to a competitor. My first reaction was to disagree with this new library policy. But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  I think if you were to do this today, the video store would report to the credit bureaus do they could make you a little less likely to get an apartment or that next job. So I think we've made progress...
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    I had no credit. I think they asked for an ID and that was it. I returned their property but didn’t pay their fine.
  - jldugger 5y ago
    Or file a police report and charge you with felony degree embezzlement 20 years later: https://gizmodo.com/woman-hit-with-embezzlement-charges-for-20-year-old-ove-1846764009 https://gizmodo.com/woman-hit-with-embezzlement-charges-for-...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - yissp 5y ago
    Is it common for companies to check the credit history of job candidates? Why would they care? they're the ones paying you.
skissane 5y ago
> There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have. Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those. Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not. And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.
- GhostVII 5y ago
  It could do the opposite, borrowers may feel that the late fees justify them keeping the book for longer, since they are paying for their excess usage.
  - jaggederest 5y ago
    Kahneman talks about a study done in Israel that adding a modest fee for people who are late picking up their children from daycare actually increases lateness - people view it as a fair transaction, whereas previously they would feel shame if they were late.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      That is actually really profound!
    - Aeolun 5y ago
vlunkr 5y ago
I agree, but really only for somewhere with a big library with multiple copies of most books. My library typically has 0-1 copies of a book I want to read, and if it's even moderately popular, I have to place a hold on it. This would be terrible without late fees.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  Why? In every case I’m aware of, removing late fees increased library return rates, so this would improve the likelihood you get the book you have on hold sooner.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tzs 5y ago
> If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library. My recollection from the last time I returned a library book late (decades ago) is that the fee was a certain amount per day late. In that case even if you cannot pay the fee there is still incentive to return the book as soon as possible because that stops the fee owed from growing, meaning it will be easier to eventually pay it off and get your library privileges restored.
tjs8rj 5y ago
Missing is a reason to return the book promptly, or to avoid getting it lost, or to avoid stealing books. Why not just cap fees are the value of the book replacement?
- pjerem 5y ago
  The solution here is better, as i've read above. You are still charged for late fees but they are canceled/refunded as soon as you return the book.
mytailorisrich 5y ago
The purpose of late fees is mostly to make people return books on time, IMHO. I don't really agree with the angle taken by the Burbank and NY public libraries that somewhat depicts fees and fines as unfair and only penalising the poorest, which sounds like a ideological stance. Those fees penalise those do not follow the rules, and that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. People who use public libraries responsibly never have to pay any of those fees. I also think it's fair to charge a replacement fee for lost material (which are also abolished according to the article). Now, if they have actual data showing that these fees don't work and an alternative approach improves the return of books, especially return on time, then by all means go for it.
smsm42 5y ago
I am not poor and I can easily afford a lot of late fees in my local library. Still, I notice that having late fees makes me want to return books in time, even if I didn't finish it. If these weren't in place, I probably would keep the book longer, even (or especially) if it's in-demand one with a long wait list and I didn't finish it in time. I also see from an article that they eliminated fees for not returned ("lost") books which looks like just an open invitation to steal books from the library. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think it'd work very well.
black_puppydog 5y ago
> This seems like an obvious improvement. Well, it's not all that obvious in a world where "just add a monetary incentive" is the go-to policy change for just about anything... Great that some people think beyond that though.

nickysielicki 5y ago

Think about it rationally: If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books.

blendergeek 5y ago
> Think about it rationally: I will try to do that. > If you have a book you haven’t finished but want to, there’s no incentive to return it now. Check out as many books as you’d like, return them at your leisure, and screw anyone who has any concurrent interests in any of those books. Under the new system, if you have any overdue books, you cannot check out new books. So you cannot "check out as many books as you would like". You can return them at your leisure. A system of library fines works best under the following conditions: * For most people who use the library, there is only a very small subset of books that interest them. * And these people want to keep the books long term. * And these people can afford library fines. People who are interested in only a few books, want them long term, and can afford library fines generally buy their books at book stores rather than stealing them from libraries. The system recently adopted by New York City will still work if most library users * are interested in a selection of books greater than the maximum number that can be checked out at a time * and regularly want to switch out books * and cannot afford library fines I will assume that the New York City Library System knows who their users are. Generally people who use public library fit into the poorer class of people and the people who need the library the most are those who cannot afford books and therefore regularly checkout new books. For these people, the system adopted by the New York Library will still motivate them to return their books. Yes, some people who can afford books will steal from the library. Well, if they ever want to check out new books, they will need to return their old books (and maybe the New York Library has done the math and decided that a small enough percentage of the population is book thieves that this will work)

bowmessage 5y ago

This is an "improvement" in the same way that abolishing police reduces the arrest rate.

lalaland1125 5y ago
But libraries do see more books being returned with these systems. Telling someone that they will be automatically able to check out new books if they return the ones they have is really effective in practice. As opposed to the old system where you have to both return the book and pay money so lots of poor people would just ignore the library.
elviejo 5y ago
It really, is* an improvement the same way that netflix, when rented dvds, didn't allow you to take any other dvd until you returned the one you already had. That strategy was enough to bankrupt blockbuster. So it can work for NY public libraries. Maybe if blockbuster had been willing to forgo the late fees income stream they would still exist today.
- SilasX 5y ago
  Wait, what? Blockbuster did end late fees, and it was widely regarded as a disaster, because then people took their sweet time returning rentals (above and beyond the lost revenue): https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39332696 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39332696 >Blockbuster tried dropping its late fees a few years ago, but that didn't work out well because it kept the most popular DVDs out of its stores for long stretches.
  - RussianCow 5y ago
    I don't know this for a fact, but I'd wager a guess that interest in rental movies is mostly concentrated around a handful of titles at any given moment, whereas interest in library books is more evenly dispersed. This means that two people are much less likely to want to rent the same book at the same time, as opposed to the same movie.

kazinator 5y ago

The books are destroyed; no what. Late fees: pay small fee, borrow books. No late fees: pay for replacement, borrow books. I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended. If you don't return books for an excessively long period, like six months, their value is automatically deducted from your deposit on top of accrued late fees; then you may keep the books.

siquick 5y ago
> I think the best system would be something like a $200 fully refundable deposit, plus late fees (deducted from your deposit account). Account must not drop below $180 due to accrued late fees, or use of library is suspended. One of the most blinkered views I've seen on HN. Who exactly do you think benefits from libraries the most? It sure isn't people who have a lazy $200 sitting around.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kazinator 5y ago
  The library could actually pay a reasonable interest on that, say, a bit better than a bank account. So there would be no downside in parking the 200 there rather than a bank account.
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    Except having to front the library $200 you don’t have.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      If you don't have $200, why do you need to take books out, and where is it that you're taking them? What's wrong with reading them right there?

KorematsuFredt 5y ago

Depends on the book. If the book is less valuable then membership costs yes, else people might make a business out of selling overdue books.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> else people might make a business out of selling overdue books How many books can you sign out at once? Like five or something? You think people are going to make a business out of selling five books on a street corner? How much do you think they’ll fetch given they’re already free at the library? Lunacy.
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Looks like 50 unless you're a teacher. Still not worth the trouble trying to find someone to buy a copy of Harry Potter that says "property of NYPL" on it when they're a dime a dozen already. https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials https://www.nypl.org/help/borrowing-materials
- KorematsuFredt 5y ago
  Again depends on the book. Some textbooks might be fairly valuable which students might sell to their juniors after they are done with its use.
lalaland1125 5y ago
The replacement fees aren't changing at all. This is solely about eliminating late fees. If someone is going to be stealing books from the library and selling them under the new system, the incentives to do that would be exactly the same as under the old system.
karaterobot 5y ago
None of the books you could check out on a library card would be worth it. You'd be checking out circulation material, not special collections items (rare manuscripts and such), and they'd all be clearly marked as library materials, so of much lower value on the secondary market than a regular used copy of the same book would be.

ejb999 5y ago

>>There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have. You just come back and get a new library card under another name...just keep taking out more books and selling them on ebay; that will become a cottage industry. suckers, i mean taxpayers, will just have to make up the difference.

RussianCow 5y ago
This is already possible today, and yet it doesn't appear to be an issue plaguing libraries.
lalaland1125 5y ago
This change is only about late fees. People who don't return books are still subject to replacement fees under the new system.
LaMarseillaise 5y ago
In what way does the late-fee policy prevent this?
jcrawfordor 5y ago
I don't know about NYPL but where I live getting a library card requires more ID than registering to vote. I wouldn't be surprised if they already have measures in place against patrons opening multiple accounts.
reitzensteinm 5y ago
So what's to stop you doing this today? If you're able to use fake names why would you care about fines that can't be tracked to you?
akudha 5y ago
There will always be a small subset of people who will abuse any system. Unless/Until this becomes a big enough problem, going after these people isn’t necessary, in my opinion. NYPL can always bring the fines back, if/wham it does become a big enough issue

jcrawfordor 5y ago

I think this just matches human behavior a lot more too in terms of how late books happen - usually just because someone forgot or it was inconvenient to return it on time. Eliminating late fines and instead blocking checking out more books means that the person is incentivized to bring the book with them next time they go to the library, so that they are rewarded with being allowed check something else out. Late fines tend to do the opposite... once they realize the book is past due, they are incentivized to avoid going back to the library, because once they do they'll be punished. The incentive of being able to check out another book is likely not enough to overcome having to pay even a relatively small fine. It seems fairly intuitive to me that this creates a perverse incentive that will often discourage people from returning books at all, rather than encouraging returning them on time. As mentioned elsewhere, this seems like the same discovery Netflix made back when they were mailing DVDs: it is more effective to incentivize returning by making it a tit-for-tat trade than by fining non-returners. Sure, this approach might end up with people never returning items if they never want to get more (move away, etc), but that's a relatively uncommon situation for a library, and doesn't seem to have become a major problem for Netflix. More subjectively, I also think that charging a replacement fee to patrons that truly cannot return the book feels more fair than charging a per-day late fine until you hit replacement. It's more of a direct indemnity sort of situation.

nemo44x 5y ago

Back in the day when I was a poor college student I rented a movie from a local video store. It was an old movie and because of my laziness I failed to return it on time. But eventually did and they wanted a $40 late fee, which was a lot of money for me at the time. A new copy would have cost less. So I stopped being a customer and went to a competitor. My first reaction was to disagree with this new library policy. But if poor people want to read books and forget to return them, it doesn’t help to punish them. Sometimes we just have to accept that a certain percentage of society can’t or won’t do socially responsible things all the time.

NoSorryCannot 5y ago
I think if you were to do this today, the video store would report to the credit bureaus do they could make you a little less likely to get an apartment or that next job. So I think we've made progress...
- nemo44x 5y ago
  I had no credit. I think they asked for an ID and that was it. I returned their property but didn’t pay their fine.
- jldugger 5y ago
  Or file a police report and charge you with felony degree embezzlement 20 years later: https://gizmodo.com/woman-hit-with-embezzlement-charges-for-20-year-old-ove-1846764009 https://gizmodo.com/woman-hit-with-embezzlement-charges-for-...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- yissp 5y ago
  Is it common for companies to check the credit history of job candidates? Why would they care? they're the ones paying you.

skissane 5y ago

> There is no need for late fees when libraries can use much simpler and more effective incentives like not allowing you to check out more books until you return the ones you have. Late fees do have one benefit – what if someone has a strong interest in one particular book (or a handful of books, which fits within their borrowing limit). Maybe it is a textbook or reference book for a course they are doing. Maybe they are just an obsessive person. They want to borrow a book for far longer than the standard borrowing term, or even indefinitely. They don't care if doing so blocks them from borrowing any further books, because they are more interested in the book(s) they have currently borrowed than in any of those. Before, if they didn't return it, they would start getting late fees. Some people may be so intent on possessing that book, they may consider the late fees worth it – viewing it as a rental fee rather than a fine. But others, the late fee may be enough to convince them to return it, whereas merely suspending their borrowing privileges would not. And this can make a difference to other library users. Ever wanted to read a book, or even borrow it, but you can't because it is out on loan? Abolishing late fees runs the risk of making that negative experience much more common than it was before.

GhostVII 5y ago
It could do the opposite, borrowers may feel that the late fees justify them keeping the book for longer, since they are paying for their excess usage.
- jaggederest 5y ago
  Kahneman talks about a study done in Israel that adding a modest fee for people who are late picking up their children from daycare actually increases lateness - people view it as a fair transaction, whereas previously they would feel shame if they were late.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    That is actually really profound!
  - Aeolun 5y ago

vlunkr 5y ago

I agree, but really only for somewhere with a big library with multiple copies of most books. My library typically has 0-1 copies of a book I want to read, and if it's even moderately popular, I have to place a hold on it. This would be terrible without late fees.

akerl_ 5y ago
Why? In every case I’m aware of, removing late fees increased library return rates, so this would improve the likelihood you get the book you have on hold sooner.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tzs 5y ago

> If you are poor with an overdue book, you really have no incentive to return it. You can't pay the fee so even if you return it you won't get use of the library. My recollection from the last time I returned a library book late (decades ago) is that the fee was a certain amount per day late. In that case even if you cannot pay the fee there is still incentive to return the book as soon as possible because that stops the fee owed from growing, meaning it will be easier to eventually pay it off and get your library privileges restored.

tjs8rj 5y ago

Missing is a reason to return the book promptly, or to avoid getting it lost, or to avoid stealing books. Why not just cap fees are the value of the book replacement?

pjerem 5y ago
The solution here is better, as i've read above. You are still charged for late fees but they are canceled/refunded as soon as you return the book.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

The purpose of late fees is mostly to make people return books on time, IMHO. I don't really agree with the angle taken by the Burbank and NY public libraries that somewhat depicts fees and fines as unfair and only penalising the poorest, which sounds like a ideological stance. Those fees penalise those do not follow the rules, and that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. People who use public libraries responsibly never have to pay any of those fees. I also think it's fair to charge a replacement fee for lost material (which are also abolished according to the article). Now, if they have actual data showing that these fees don't work and an alternative approach improves the return of books, especially return on time, then by all means go for it.

smsm42 5y ago

I am not poor and I can easily afford a lot of late fees in my local library. Still, I notice that having late fees makes me want to return books in time, even if I didn't finish it. If these weren't in place, I probably would keep the book longer, even (or especially) if it's in-demand one with a long wait list and I didn't finish it in time. I also see from an article that they eliminated fees for not returned ("lost") books which looks like just an open invitation to steal books from the library. Maybe I'm too cynical but I don't think it'd work very well.

black_puppydog 5y ago

> This seems like an obvious improvement. Well, it's not all that obvious in a world where "just add a monetary incentive" is the go-to policy change for just about anything... Great that some people think beyond that though.