Free Lunch

Most people have heard of the expression, "there is no such thing as a free lunch," but it seems that mentality has fallen out of fashion. I did a little searching (link below) and found out that it refers back to a common saloon practice from the turn of the 20th century. Basically, saloon owners would entice patrons to visit on the promise that they would receive a free lunch if they were to purchase at least one drink. Now, since this meal was usually worth more than the drink, it would have seemed illogical to refuse the offer. The owner was simply hedging his bet that they would purchase enough drinks to make it worth his while by forcing them to start on a path of drinking and putting that first bevvy in their hands. He was not only trying to guarantee their purchase of drinks then, but gain a little spot in their heart as the watering hole of choice. Hopefully, they would return in the evenings to purchase even more drinks. I'm not arguing that there is anything wrong with that offer, but this "free lunch" comes with the purchase of another item. In a sense, the meal isn't necessarily free, but part of a package. It doesn't matter how you break it down, in order to get that meal, some coin is going to have to change hands. That is the essence of how the expression, "there is no such thing as a free lunch," came to signify that things which appear free are, upon further exploration, not completely without cost. For all goods and services exchanged, somebody has to pay. Basically, you don't get anything for nothing.

The internet generation would beg to differ. The availability of information and services on the internet has led people to believe that pretty much anything can be obtained free of charge. With enough searching, people are pretty sure they must be able to find someway to get what they want for free. This mainly applies to non-material goods and services (information, media, communication), there are some ways to get some material goods as well (free sections on craigslist, contests, raffles, giveaways). Most of these methods, though somewhat grey in their legality (Wikipedia and other sources drawing from what people have read in other published, proprietary information), are commonly acceptable. Other products and services are free of charge with the attachment of advertisements (Google mail services and such) and are much more accepted. Then, there are the illegitimate piracy of copyrighted material (peer-to-peer networks and streaming services) which I can only classify as off-black. They are so close to being absolutely wrong that their purity, or lack thereof, is almost indistinguishable therefrom. Either way, they all have helped fuel a feeling of entitlement. We have grown to feel we deserve to have all of these things for free.

If that's the case, who should foot the bill? Somebody has to pay for these goods and services. If you think about it, even the information media that is thrown across endless networks onto your computer screen seems almost weightless and inconsequential. We don't associate a cost with it, but what about the costs of compiling it? What about the costs of transmitting it? You can't argue that it comes out of the bill from your internet service provider (ISP). That just covers their end of transmitting, and I don't believe any of it goes to the creators of that media. So, who does foot the bill? It comes down, mainly, to advertising and grants from large corporations and organizations. It seems we, unconsciously, expect them to foot the bill for a lot more than they should. If, all of a sudden, Google were to announce that they were no longer able to offer free e-mail services, people would, most likely, be up in arms, and not just for the inconvenience. At some level, we feel we deserve to get it for free, and we don't stop to give thanks. They don't have to provide these services, but we have grown to expect them to. I'm just using Google as an example, but it applies across the board. People expect more and more for free.

It's almost too perfect that Google, the company that is, in my opinion, the leader in providing services for free, provides free meals to their employees. How's that for disproving the idiom that "there is no such thing as a free lunch?" Sure, those people have to work there in exchange for it, but it's Google, once again, providing something extra at no extra charge, something for free. Your bill is going to look the same whether you take it or not. That's what you call a "free lunch".

Updates:
The finish on my XBOX 360 was, after a few years, abused to say the least. Add to that the new release of Kinect fueling the fire of the XBOX world, and I couldn't find better reason to take it apart and repaint it. I've nicknamed it "The Hive," and this is what it looks like now.

Also, in order to give a little company to the "Naturally Sweet" Munny I completed a week or so ago, I painted this Marshall figure (indicative of its marshmallow shape). I nicknamed him "Strawberry Fields," and, yes, he can break dance.

Links:
The Phrase Finder (UK): Article