Imagine that a stranger proposes you and me the following deal. She will give us 5,000$ if we can agree on how to split it. It works like this: I choose a split and you don't get to negotiate it, you can only accept the deal (in which case each of us gets what I chose) or reject it (in which case neither of us gets anything).
After giving it a short thought, I propose that I get 4,990$ and you get 10$.
Would you accept the deal?
(I'm not asking what you think is the rational thing to do from either a selfish or political standpoint, but what would you actually do.)
I would accept your offer for $10, estevo.
I find the phrasing of the problem interesting. "She will give
us $5000" is very important. Before hearing the rest of the problem, I'm inclined to feel like I'm about to receive $2500. When it turns out that I stand to receive $10 at the most, my immediate reaction is to feel cheated and insulted. I think this is a very irrational, but understandably human reaction. However, this is only because of an artificial feeling of entitlement. I didn't do anything to deserve any of that money, so why should I be upset?
In the end I think I'd realize that $10 can buy a 6 pack of good beer and that that's better than nothing.
Lesser amounts might change my decision, however. My rejection wouldn't necessarily be out of spite (which has been discussed here already), but because smaller amounts of money can't buy me much. For instance, $1 doesn't even get me a gallon of gas -- it's a waste of time for me to stand around talking with strangers for so little.
In the end, I think it just comes down to answering, "How much is $10 worth to you?". As an American with Australian roots, I tend to value money in relation to gas (USA) and beer (Australia). $10 can get me a useful amount of either
