what can the behavior of the work collective say about the economy?

Description of the game

In Russia, unlike many countries (meaning the countries of the European Union, Great Britain, the USA, Israel), there is a strange and seemingly paradoxical “game” (as we hereafter call this established social behavior), which is stubbornly supported by society, but This seems completely illogical and meaningless to an outside observer: for each birthday of his colleague, the entire team unanimously chipped in “for a gift”, and each time the employee gave a significant amount to the general cash desk, usually exceeding 1% of his salary per month. The collected amount in the form of a highly liquid asset, more often – in money, less often – in their equivalent such as a gift certificate, is given to the birthday man in an envelope as a gift!

“And I do it, and I don’t even think about it. I don’t feel sorry, but what’s unusual about that?”

Indeed, what’s wrong with the whole team making a gift to the birthday boy, who, all the more, spent money on treats for his colleagues? And the generous Russian soul cannot but want to give something valuable and memorable to the hero of the occasion, especially on such an important occasion as a birthday, March 8th, February 23rd, etc. What can be here petty calculations? And the best gift is money, because it gives you the freedom to choose exactly what the hero of the occasion wants, right?

Bourgeois in other countries understandably trifles. The amount (relative to the level of wages) that is contributed to the general fund is much lower than in Russia: it would hardly occur to anyone to part with an amount of more than 0.1% of their monthly salary, even for a rare event such as a wedding or birth of a child. And the issuance of a gift with “money” is appropriate precisely in rare cases, such as the birth of a child. In other cases, a gift is usually bought and becomes some kind of “memorial” item. It is interesting that the “bourgeois” contribution of 0.1% of the salary is more in line with the employee’s one-time expenses for lunch (both in Russia and in other countries) than “our generous” amount of 1% of the salary, and is more adequate ” the price of a ticket” to participate in the celebrations.

Why is this “game” with a clearly inflated “ticket price” so widespread in Russia? What economic or social factors make it attractive to participants in the “game”, especially given its seeming senselessness from an economic point of view?

What exactly is unusual in the “game”?

Assuming the stationarity of the entire system, namely:

• permanent team,

• the same contribution amount

• negligible bank rate for both debit and credit,

• stable economic factors, in particular, low inflation,

as noted above, such a “game” does not make sense. Indeed, if all colleagues always make their contributions, then the amount of funds contributed per year by one employee for the birthdays of colleagues will be

Where N – the number of employees in the team, a – the amount of the contribution will be strictly equal to the amount that the employee receives once a year as a birthday person (the game assumes that the birthday person does not make contributions to himself for a gift) from other colleagues:

Thus, the overall balance of the game is zero:

Moreover, the game is guaranteed to be fair only if the contribution is equal to zero (a = 0), since at the slightest manifestation of system instability (for example, the “collector” fell ill, went on vacation, forgot to collect, or someone did not make / could not make a contribution), the game immediately becomes unfair, as there will be

• “losers” are those who L>P And

• “winners” at someone else’s expense – hardly with the consent of the “losers” – those who have P > L

The usual justification for the meaning of passing money “in a circle” is to pay for the dishes that the birthday man treats colleagues, although it is obvious (with other stationary factors) that it is logistically easier, and more likely to be fairer, when the birthday man does this without expecting to cover his expenses for treats colleagues, since due to the fact that in the fair (equilibrium) case P=La year he spends on birthdays anyway

Where S – the cost of a table for a birthday. That is, the same amount as he would have spent on treating colleagues without participating in the game.

Versions: why is the “game” common

What factors make people take part in it?

Let’s go through the possible versions in order:

1. Low mathematical ability or lack of intelligence. Let’s discard this version, since before my eyes not the most stupid people did not refuse the “game”, including good teachers of mathematics and physics.

2. social pressure. We will also discard it, since if there are a sufficient number of people in the population with qualities opposite to those considered in paragraph 1, then sooner or later such a tradition will become obsolete. On the other hand, in order to create the illusion of material incentives at work, in fact produced not by the employer, but at the expense of employees, the employer himself often supports such social behavior through management. I have seen how, in order to manipulate and arouse a false sense of guilt, employees were motivated to participate in the game by the fact that they work in a “good” organization where they are paid a stable salary. At the same time, of course, it was silent that the timely payment of wages is the norm and obligation of the employer. Again, the presence of people who are willing to pay out of their own pocket so as not to be deprived of the opportunity to go to work is rather closer to point 1.

3. Low level of savings, combined with a critically high interest rate on the loan. If an employee lives from paycheck to paycheck, and with any large expenses it is necessary to take out a loan with a high cost of securing it, then a one-time receipt of funds from colleagues to cover large expenses will indeed be economically justified and will avoid losing interest on the loan.

4. Non-stationarity of the system such as inconsistent composition of the team or the size of the contribution a. If the composition of the team can be considered constant under the conditions of our model or not having much effect on the decision to take part in the “game”, then the change in the size of the contribution, where a