[bruce511]

"fairness" is an interesting concept in commerce of any kind, which seems to be more prevalent in the US than elsewhere.[1]

If one thinks of commerce as "willing buyer,willing seller" then a transaction occurs at the point where both sides are content with the money/product swap. What other people paid for the same product is only tangentially relevant - if I'm happy with the transaction today why should I be less happy tomorrow based on someone else's transaction?

Outside the US you see this in places where markets are more fluid, and in some places have no pricing at all. You are expected to haggle (I mean, negotiate) - failure to do so makes a fool of the vendor to offer first too low a price.

In other words, the world is unfair. Sometimes in your favour, sometimes against. The sooner one accepts that the easier life becomes..

Equally though unfairness creates a gap in the market. Girls toys cost more than boys toys (same toy, different package) suggests an opportunity.

[1] for the purposes of this discussion I'm not talking about protected classes, such as race. There are some unfairness that are considered to be unacceptable.

[chii]

> if I'm happy with the transaction today why should I be less happy tomorrow based on someone else's transaction?

jealousy. Even animal studies have shown that monkeys who sees another monkey receive more reward for the same "work" gets angry (i recall it was some experiment where one monkey got "paid" in grapes, while another was paid in something else less desirable - i forgot what - and initially both were happy, as they did not see each other's payment, but once the monkey saw the grape reward, they refused their reward and got angry).

[strken]

This is a useful strategy. If the other monkey is getting paid in grapes and you're getting feed pellets, why shouldn't you make a play for an equally good reward?

Obviously there are cases where you'll never get the grapes, but that's why we have executive function.