Siblings or Congress: Who Is More Dysfunctional?

As it turns out, the industrial organization of siblings is a lot like that of Congress when logrolling is involved and committees are not. Much like in Congress, logrolling agreements between siblings are dangerous because of the lack of explicit contract and lack of paper trail. The Schulz family needs to come up with the equivalence of a committee system to solve the “logrolling” problems that occur in agreements between myself and my two siblings, Olivia and Jack.

Last winter break I went home with a desire to get back into a good exercise routine. Knowing that I needed an accountability partner, I asked Jack to workout with me each morning starting the day after Christmas and ending when I returned for the start of spring semester. He agreed to be my workout partner as long as I let him use my car on New Year’s Eve. Agreeing to these terms, Jack and I started working out together every morning. On New Year’s Eve, Jack used my car just as we had agreed. Then, come January 2^nd (because let’s be real—we weren’t going to work out on New Year’s morning), Jack was still in bed when the time of our workout came around. He informed me that he would no longer be my workout partner—he simply didn’t see the value in carrying on our agreement after he was able to use my car. This was a perfect (and disappointing) example of noncontemporaneous benefits flows. The benefits flowing from our agreement occurred over different time horizons: mine were constant over the multiple weeks of winter break while Jack’s were constrained to one night. Therefore, once Jack’s benefits were realized, he felt no pressure to continue on with our agreement. 

Don’t cry for me, guys. I’m guilty of my own agreement betrayals. Going home gives Olivia and me plenty of opportunities to go to the restaurants that we miss going to while at school. My favorite restaurant, Paul’s, and Olivia’s favorite restaurant, Peking, are often pitted against one another in the family debates on where to eat out for dinner. One evening when my craving for Paul’s was particularly high, I asked Olivia to vote for Paul’s, assuring her that next time we went out I would vouch for Peking. Olivia, the reliable partner that she is, was the swing vote that got us to Paul’s that night. Satisfied, I quickly forgot about our agreement. Two weeks later, when another vote on where to go to dinner came up in our family group message, I voted for Plaza Azteca. Jack also voted for Plaza; Olivia, not paying attention to her phone, was outraged when she realized that we had decided to go to Plaza without her vote (hey, majority rules). This instance of nonsimultaneous exchange occurred because the votes did not come up at the same time. Unwittingly, I demonstrated ex post opportunism by backing out of my promise to vote for Olivia’s restaurant when the opportunity arose.