I am a barista. This means that I am unashamedly pretentious about my coffee. I prefer dark roast to light, cappuccinos to lattés, and I know what a macchiato is (it isn’t the same as the sweet caramel treat at Starbucks). As warmer weather approaches, nothing hits the spot quite like an iced coffee. I’m not talking about an iced latté, or an iced Americano, but good ole cold press iced coffee. A trip to Sayles seems to be sufficient to satisfy this craving. However, as many will attest, the coffee and espresso drinks at Sayles leave much to be desired.

One day, I was standing in line waiting to order some French fries. The woman in front of me ordered what she hoped to be a refreshing iced coffee. I was shocked when I saw the barista put ice in a cup and pour hot drip-brew coffee over it! I had heard of this happening before, but I thought that it must have been an error on the part of a new staff member. After seeing it with my own eyes, I wondered why Sayles always made its iced coffee incorrectly.

To get at an answer, let me first explain how iced coffee is supposed to be made. One must first grind up coffee beans, and then let them steep in a bath of ice and cold water, preferably over night. This process produces a coffee that has a smoother flavor and is less acidic than traditional drip-brew coffee (the stuff you make every morning with a paper filter).

While there are other coffee shops in town, that do make ice coffee correctly, Sayles has an advantage in its central position on campus. This in effect creates a monopoly. Sure a student could go to Goodbye Blue Monday, but at the cost of a half hour round trip.

Time is a finite resource. Just as students often do not want to give up half an hour just for a solid cup of iced coffee, Sayles does not want to spend sixteen hours steeping its iced coffee. If someone comes in to order an iced coffee, but the cold press hasn’t finished steeping, Sayles risks losing a sale. Because they know that faculty, staff, and students will come to them first, they are content to continue serving bad iced coffee.

Why, then, does Goodbye Blue Monday or Caribou Coffee make cold press correctly? Both are in monopolistic competition vying for the business of the people of Northfield. Each knows that if they produce a low quality iced coffee, they will lose the business of Northfield residents to the shop with a higher quality coffee. Each has an incentive to make good iced coffee.

The opportunity cost of producing quality iced coffee is too high for Sayles, which because of its location acts as a monopoly. Were Sayles in monopolistic competition with the other coffee shops in Northfield, it would have to make iced coffee the correct way, lest the residents of Northfield find some other coffeehouse to quench their thirst.

Last week, at the urging of some friends, I applied to be a New Student Week leader. At the time, I had heard through the grapevine that SAO was short on applicants, and I figured that I would at least apply. When I applied I was not totally sure if  I would commit to the program, but I figured I’d keep my options open (I wasn’t even thinking about the Dan Airley article from earlier this term!).

This morning, I woke up to an email from someone in SAO saying that there were more applicants than ever before for the 65 open NSW Leader positions. The email was sent to all students who applied to be Leaders asking them to confirm their commit to the program if accepted. I have until noon tomorrow (Friday, May 16) to decide whether or not I want to be a NSW Leader. I figured that I would “think out loud” on this blog.

The benefits to being a NSW Leader are that I would get to spend an extra week on campus with my friends. This week would include minimal amounts of work. Additionally, I would get to meet some of the incoming freshman and give them my perspective on life here at Carleton. I had great NSW Leaders, and I think that it would be fun to help incoming freshman get acquainted with campus.

There is a pretty large opportunity cost associated with being a NSW Leader. I would have to come to campus ten days early: giving up the approximately $500.00 pay check that I could earn working at Caribou Coffee. So is a few extra days with friends and a chance to meet incoming freshman really worth $500.00?

One factor that I must consider is how much I will be itching to get away from home after the three months that I will be spending there. This is hard to conceptualize because, right now, I am very excited to be home, but I know that after three months I will be ready to be back in Northfield.

It is also entirely possible that I could start my on-campus job (which pays better than Caribou!) ten days early, in which case, being a NSW Leader is definitely the better choice. If, on the other hand, I have to wait until the start of Fall Term to start working then I think it would be wise to stay home.

It looks like I have a couple phone calls to make…

The vegan in me couldn’t resist. I found a post by one of the authors of our book, Alex Tabbarok, that touched on some of the economic reasons that “in-vitro” meat (that is, meat grown in a laboratory as opposed to on an animal) might be a good thing, you can check it out here.

The post has a very interesting quote from a 1932 article by Winston Churchill, “Fifty years hence we shall escape the absurdity of growing a whole chicken in order to eat the breast or wing by growing these parts separately under a suitable medium.” Upon reflection, I hope that many of you will find, as I have, that it really is ridiculous to raise an entire chicken just for the breast and thigh meat. Economics is the study of how we allocate scarce resources. It does not make a lot of sense to raise an entire animal and proceed to only use the parts that we find appetizing. And, while, many left over “parts” of animals are used for everything from hog feed to hotdogs, the fact remains that in-vitro meat provides a much more economical alternative.

Leaving aside the fact that it will take some time to perfect the technology to “grow” meat, there are some advantages to “in-vitro” meat. Firms would be able to cut their variable costs by only growing the parts of an animal that they know consumers would eat. Variable costs would also be reduced because the factors of production would change. The water used in electric shock tanks to stun chickens would be gone: replaced instead by petri dishes.

The consumer side of things is a little bit harder. Perhaps the most important questions is: Will consumers buy and consume meat that is grown in a laboratory? If the answer is yes, then the demand for meat will probably stay about the same, or even increase (more on this in a minute). If the answer is no, then consumers’ demand for meat will probably drop. However, this drop seems unlikely. It will take time for cultural attitudes to changes, but I think that people will warm up to the idea of “in-vitro” meat.

How is that demand for meat could increase if consumers are receptive to “in-vitro” meat? Some vegetarians and vegans may decide that ethics are no longer an issue and that it is perfectly okay to consume meat products. In this case, the demand for meat will increase.

Of course “in-vitro” meat brings up many more ethical, environmental, and social questions, but for now, it seems as though they provide economic benefits.