Bandwagon Blogger

Any thoughts on $/lb pricing for movie tickets? I spent the 157 minutes of SUPERMAN RETURNS next to an extremely capacious person (despite having arrived 30 minutes early expressly to avoid being forced into such a situation), so I feel your pain (or approximately 47.5% of it, anyway). At least my seatmate put down the armrest herself…
To address your modest proposal, though: is per pound pricing meant to incentivize dieting (perhaps vs. “healthy” eating, even, which would not maximize savings), or is it meant to disincentivize the venturing forth of the obese into the public sphere? I wonder if such penalty pricing would amount to a regressive tax, as rates of obesity are actually higher amongst the lower class (a la http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/race_class/othergirlsstuff.html). And, in the end, do you support such a policy because it would make it less likely that you’d find your personal space corporally impinged upon, or because you might take refuge in the thought that at least your involuntary seatmate paid more for her ticket?
Further: maybe loquaciousness could be dealt with on a cellphone plan-like system, where one gets a certain modest amount of free chatter, enough to ask for more ice or (maybe even "and/or") what the inflight movie will be, after which a steep per-rate kicks in. It would discourage the idle sharing of insipid observations by strangers while simultaneously providing a polite financial cover for one’s own stony, two-word, further-conversation-discouraging answers; a talky seatmate might be less insulted if they perceived your chat resistance to be economic rather than personal.
But then: Who collects the fee-- you (the sufferer) or the airline (which would presumably enforce the system)? And how do you break it to your aunt that she's not on the equivalent of the free-nights-and-weekends “family plan”?
 

These are good points. Naturally, they were briefly discussed prior to posting - the $/lb emerged from a small group discussion subject to my venting. I must accredit someone else for being the first to broach this proposal. I actually had raised the question and consequences of 'incentivized dieting' but then figured that the issue is really bordering another industry, healthcare, that politicians wouldn't want to touch upon anyway. And thus, why should I?
Rashly, while I recognize some of the most obvious ramifications of incentivized dieting, I am compelled to point out that this already happens on a slightly broader scale. Clothes, in many instances, cost more in larger sizes. It is less obvious because consumers are being charged more money for every additional, say, 10 lbs - or whatever the average difference in weight is that prompts a change in size selection. So the proposal shouldn't make consumers that much more conscious about their weight than they already are.

How about this for an alternative proposal?
What if there were a weight limitation? I think a few airlines have already implemented this - not sure if it has been maintained. But to further that, what if it were to work in the same manner as carbon emissions trading? For every pound that I am under the limit, I can sell to those who are over the limit through a bid process. The airline can reap profits through buyers who were not able to purchase the "excess pound limits" and need to pay the remainder of the airfare, and through commissions paid by the sellers for use of the 'marketplace.' How much of an advantage does this push toward the lower-weight spectrum though? Would the world suddenly be ruled by rich short, little people?* Midgets?! Oy vey.

You also bring up a good point about loquacious neighbors, but my original elusive-ish comment had a slightly different intention that I fear to clarify.

* How do you punctuate this sentence? I mean short or little people who are rich.