Get the App Get the App
MenuClose
Get the App

Friendsgiving Cost Sharing: How to Price the Cook’s Hours

Updated Oct 17, 2026 · 19 min read

You spent 5 hours making the turkey. Your friend brought a $15 pie. When it’s time to settle up, why does that feel unfair?

How do you split Friendsgiving costs fairly when one person cooked?

Split the receipts by who shared what, then credit the cook’s hours at one agreed hourly rate under one agreed rule. In the example below everyone shares everything, so the receipt shares come out equal. Most groups skip two decisions. The first is what the rate is based on. The second is whether the credit is added to the shared pool or taken off the cook’s own share. In the example below, at $15 an hour, the choice of rule alone changes the cook’s result by $36.38: under one rule she ends $36.38 ahead, and under the other her dinner costs her $0.

Take an example Friendsgiving for four friends. The names and numbers are illustrative:

Maya (Host + Turkey)
Turkey + sides: $87Cooking time: 5 hoursHosting, cleaning: 3 hours
James (Mashed Potatoes)
Ingredients: $18Cooking time: 1.5 hours
Sofia (Bought Wine)
3 bottles: $72Cooking time: 0 hours
Tyler (Store Pie)
Pie from bakery: $15Cooking time: 0 hours

If you only count money spent, Maya ($87) and Sofia ($72) look about even. But Maya also spent 8 hours on this dinner. Tyler walked in with a box.

This is the Friendsgiving fairness paradox: purely monetary accounting ignores the labor subsidy that home cooks provide to everyone else.

Why does unequal effort feel unfair?

Equity theory’s answer is that people judge a deal by ratios, not totals. The discomfort you feel when Tyler shows up with a $15 pie while you’ve been cooking since noon has a name in social psychology: inequity.

J. Stacy Adams set out the theory of inequity in 1965. A later summary in the Academy of Management Review states its core plainly: equity theory proposes that people who see themselves as under-rewarded or over-rewarded feel distress, and that the distress leads to efforts to restore equity. The comparison runs on each person’s ratio of outcomes to inputs.

Applied to Friendsgiving: Maya’s input (8 hours + $87) against her outcome (dinner) does not match Tyler’s input ($15) against the same outcome (dinner). The ratios don’t balance.

Ernst Fehr and Klaus Schmidt built an economic model on the same intuition in 1999. They start from a puzzle in the experimental evidence: people exploit chances to free ride in cooperation games, yet when they get the opportunity to punish free riders, cooperation holds, even though punishing is costly for the person who does it. Their answer is that some people care about equity.

This isn’t about money. It’s about proportion. Our reading: the pointed remark about the pie, from the friend who cooked all day, comes from the same concern with equity.

Sources: Adams, “Inequity in Social Exchange,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (1965); Huseman, Hatfield & Miles, “A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct,” Academy of Management Review (1987); Fehr & Schmidt, “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (1999).

What does hosting cost that no receipt shows?

Hosting costs space, cleaning time, coordination, and household supplies, and none of them appear on a grocery receipt. Even among contributors who cook, the host carries these burdens alone. And when the same friends take turns hosting year after year, those uncounted burdens land unevenly across the rotation.

SpaceThe room itself. The host provides it free.
Pre-event cleaningThe deep clean that guests never see.
Post-event cleanupDishes, garbage, stains, after the guests leave.
Coordination laborThe text chains, the schedule management, the “what should I bring?” responses.
Utilities and consumablesHeating, electricity, paper towels, soap, toilet paper—never itemized.

The fair hosting adjustment: Count hosting hours at the same rate as cooking hours. In the example, Maya’s 8 hours are 5 hours of cooking plus 3 hours of hosting and cleaning. One rate for all of them keeps the math short, and the group does not have to rank the chores.

How do you put money and hours in one number?

Convert the hours to dollars at one agreed rate, then add them to what each person spent. Richard Thaler’s work on mental accounting describes how people sort money into labeled accounts, and how that sorting breaks the rule that a dollar is a dollar. Our reading for this table: the wine has a receipt and the cooking does not, so only the wine gets counted. One agreed rate puts both in the same unit.

Step 1: Set a labor rate

Agree on an hourly rate for cooking, prep, and hosting labor. A workable rate is about $17-18 an hour. It is not the minimum wage. In May 2025 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, three of the four replacement wages for this work sit between $16.98 and $17.98, and $17-18 is that cluster rounded. The rate section below shows the data.

Step 2: Calculate total contribution value

For each person, add their monetary spending to their labor value:

Contribution Value = Money Spent + (Hours Worked x Labor Rate)

Step 3: Apply the framework

The worked example uses $15 an hour. That is a round number below every replacement wage in the rate section, so the example gives the cooks less credit than the recommended rate would. Here’s how the example Friendsgiving breaks down:

Person$ SpentHoursLabor ValueTotal Value
Maya (Host)$878$120$207
James$181.5$22.50$40.50
Sofia$720$0$72
Tyler$150$0$15

The table shows the gap: Maya contributed $207 in value. Tyler contributed $15. The four contributions total $334.50, so the average is about $83.63. Tyler is $68.63 short of it.

Source: Thaler, “Mental Accounting Matters,” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (1999).

What hourly rate should the cook get?

Credit the cook at replacement cost: what the group would pay someone else to do the same work. In May 2025 wage data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage is $16.98 for food preparation workers and $17.98 for restaurant cooks. Rounded, that is about $17-18 an hour. It prices the work, not the person. These figures are wages, what a worker is paid, and not the price a catering service bills. Treat them as a conservative benchmark.

Economists who put a dollar value on unpaid household work use two bases. The National Research Council’s 2005 report on nonmarket accounts lays out both.

Replacement cost or opportunity cost?

Replacement cost values an hour at the wage of a worker you could hire for the task. It comes in two versions. The specialist version uses the wage for the specific job, such as a cook for cooking. The generalist version uses one wage, such as a housekeeper’s, for every task.

Opportunity cost values an hour at the wage of the person doing the work, on the argument that the person gave up earnings to do it. The National Research Council report names the problem with this basis in one sentence:

“Using a professor’s hourly salary to value his time in grilling steak, for example, imputes a high price to an activity that is fairly low skilled.”

National Research Council, Beyond the Market (2005), Chapter 3

At a Friendsgiving table, opportunity cost gives the same turkey a different price depending on who roasts it. If Maya is a lawyer and James is a student, the group pays more for an hour of her stirring than an hour of his. That is hard to defend at a table of friends. The report, which is written for national accounts and not for dinner parties, comes down on the same side: its recommendation is to value home production time at replacement cost, ideally adjusted for differences in skill and effort between home and market work.

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis made the same choice when it valued household production for the national accounts. Its 2012 study uses the wage of general-purpose housekeepers and calls the result a “reasonable lower bound.” It notes that the specialist wage may overstate the value, because a home cook lacks the tools and practice of a professional.

What the bases pay for Maya’s 8 hours

Basis for the rateHourly rateMaya’s 8 hours
Federal minimum wage $7.25$58.00
Food preparation worker, median $16.98$135.84
Housekeeping cleaner, median $17.07$136.56
Restaurant cook, median $17.98$143.84
Private household cook, median $23.05$184.40
The cook’s own wage (opportunity cost) Varies by personA different price for the same turkey

Three of the four replacement wages sit between $16.98 and $17.98. The recommended rate of about $17-18 an hour is that cluster, rounded. The $15 rate in the worked example is below all four replacement wages, so the example understates the cook’s credit. The federal minimum wage is far below the cluster: $7.25 an hour, unchanged since July 24, 2009. A rate “around the federal minimum wage” under-credits the cook by more than half against any of the replacement wages. Many states have their own minimum wage laws, so check the local figure.

Which hours count?

Count the hours the job takes a competent cook, not the hours it took a first-timer. The National Research Council report makes the point with plumbing: an inexperienced homeowner spends far more time on the task than a specialist, so pricing every one of those hours at the specialist wage overstates the value. Agree the hours before the day. “Turkey and two sides: five hours” is a number the group can accept in October and cannot argue with in November.

What if the cook enjoys cooking?

Our recommendation is to leave the credit whole. National accountants face the same question, and their answer is useful to borrow. The National Research Council report treats the satisfaction a person gets from doing a task as separate from the value of what the task produces, and it leaves that satisfaction out of the account. That is an accounting convention, not a rule of friendship. But the logic carries over: the group ate the dinner whether or not Maya had fun making it.

Sources: National Research Council, Beyond the Market: Designing Nonmarket Accounts for the United States, Chapter 3 (2005); Bridgman, Dugan, Lal, Osborne & Villones, “Accounting for Household Production in the National Accounts, 1965–2010,” Survey of Current Business (May 2012); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025 national estimates, hourly median wage for Food Preparation Workers (35-2021), Cooks, Restaurant (35-2014), Cooks, Private Household (35-2013), and Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners (37-2012); U.S. Department of Labor, “Minimum Wage.” The 8-hour column is the hourly rate multiplied by 8.

Should the labor credit be added to the pool or taken off the cook’s share?

The two rules give different results for the same hours. Adding the credit to the pool can leave the cook with a cash payment. Taking the credit off the cook’s share can cut that share to zero, and it stops there. A group that agrees a rate but not a rule has agreed on half the split.

Rule 1: Add the hours to the pool

This is the framework above. Hours times rate count as a contribution, and everyone, the cook included, owes an equal share of the total value. At $15 an hour the pool is $334.50 and the equal share is about $83.63. Maya contributed $207, so the other three pay her $123.38 between them. She spent $87 on groceries and gets $123.38 back. Maya finishes $36.38 ahead in cash.

Rule 2: Take the hours off the cook’s share

Only the cash is pooled: $192 in receipts, or $48 each. Each cook’s credit then comes off that cook’s own $48. James’s $22.50 credit cuts his share to $25.50. Maya’s $120 credit is larger than her share, so her share drops to $0 and the remaining $72 of credit goes unused.

The rule is not finished yet. It removed $70.50 of shares ($48 from Maya, $22.50 from James), and someone has to cover that amount. The simplest choice is the people with no hours. Split equally between Sofia and Tyler, the $70.50 adds $35.25 to each, so each owes $83.25. State this part of the rule out loud. A deduct rule with no cover rule leaves the receipts unpaid. This cover rule needs at least one person with no hours. If everyone cooked, use Rule 1, which works for any mix of hours.

Know the weak spot of this cover rule. Anyone with any hours is exempt from the cover, so James’s 1.5 hours excuse him from Maya’s waived share. If a friend’s single hour of work would leave one non-cook covering nearly everything, use Rule 1. Rule 1 has no exemption: everyone owes the same share of the pool.

What each person pays in total under each rule

PersonRule 1: add to the poolRule 2: take off the cook’s share
Maya (8 hours, $87 spent) Ends $36.38 ahead$0
James (1.5 hours, $18 spent) $61.13$25.50
Sofia (0 hours, $72 spent) $83.63$83.25
Tyler (0 hours, $15 spent) $83.63$83.25

Each figure is a person’s total cash cost for the dinner: what they spent at the store plus or minus the settlement. Both columns account for the same $192 of receipts. The first column is rounded to the cent, so it sums to a penny more.

Three things stand out in the comparison.

  • The friends who did not cook pay almost the same either way. Sofia and Tyler each pay $83.63 under Rule 1 and $83.25 under Rule 2. The difference is less than 40 cents.
  • The rule also matters to the second cook. James pays $61.13 under Rule 1 and $25.50 under Rule 2. Under Rule 1 he pays more than the $48 cash share, because he is buying a quarter of Maya’s eight hours.
  • In this example, Rule 1 pays the main cook and Rule 2 feeds her. Under Rule 1 at $15 an hour, Maya leaves with $36.38 more than she arrived with. Under Rule 2, her dinner costs her nothing and the credit is capped there. She uses $48 of her $120 credit, which is $6 for each of her 8 hours. Rule 2 is a waiver of the cook’s share. It is not a wage.

The tipping point in this example: under Rule 1, Maya’s net cost is $48 minus $5.625 for every dollar of hourly rate. Each rate dollar adds $8 to her credit and $2.375 to the equal share (9.5 total hours across 4 people). Her cost reaches zero at about $8.53 an hour. At the $7.25 federal minimum she still pays $7.22. At every replacement wage in the table above, the group pays her to host.

For a dinner among friends, our pick is Rule 2. The cook eats free, the hours are honored, and no cash goes to the cook beyond her own grocery money. Use Rule 1 when the group has said, before the shopping starts, that it wants the cook paid in cash for the work. That is a fair deal too. It is a different deal. Neither rule has been tested at a dinner table. The next section covers what experiments say about putting a price on a favor.

Does paying the cook turn dinner into a transaction?

It can. Experiments on money and behavior suggest that a price can change how people treat an obligation, and that a small payment for performance can do worse than none. None of these studies tested a holiday dinner, so read them as a caution and not as a rule.

Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini ran a field study in a group of day-care centers, published in 2000. They introduced a fine for parents who collected their children late. The number of late parents increased significantly, and it did not fall back after the fine was removed. The study’s title gives the reading: a fine is a price.

The same two authors tested payment for effort in a second paper that year. In one experiment, 160 University of Haifa students were each paid a fixed fee for taking part, then answered 50 questions from an IQ test. Students promised a small extra payment per correct answer, 10 cents of a shekel, averaged 23.07 correct answers. Students promised no extra payment averaged 28.4. Groups promised 1 or 3 shekels per answer did better than both, at 34.7 and 34.1. The paper’s title states the lesson: “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All.”

Our reading for Friendsgiving: be careful with a token rate. The studies covered day-care pickups and task performance, not dinners, and they set no threshold for a holiday meal. But their direction is a fair warning: a small payment for performance can do worse than none. The experiments do not say what rate is right for a dinner, and they do not test a waiver like Rule 2. The case for a replacement wage rests on the wage data above, not on these studies.

How to frame the settlement is a judgment call, and no experiment here tested a Friendsgiving. Our suggestion is to frame it as fairness. “Maya did more than everyone, so let’s make sure she’s not subsidizing our dinner” reads differently from “Here’s your pay for the turkey.” Rule 2 still puts a price on the hours. What it limits is the result: the credit can cancel the cook’s share, but it cannot become a payment.

Sources: Gneezy & Rustichini, “A Fine is a Price,” The Journal of Legal Studies (2000); Gneezy & Rustichini, “Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2000).

Four approaches to Friendsgiving splitting

Different friend groups have different norms. Here are four frameworks, ranked by fairness precision:

The Potluck PassSimplest

Everyone brings something. No accounting. The social expectation of reciprocity handles fairness over time.

✓ Zero awkwardness✓ Works for close, ongoing groups✗ Persistent freeloaders never corrected✗ Host always absorbs more✗ A missing dish leaves a gap someone pays for
The Money-Only SplitCommon

Total all receipts, divide by headcount. Each person either contributed their share or owes the difference.

✓ Easy math✓ Objective (receipts don’t lie)✗ Ignores labor entirely✗ Penalizes home cooks
The Effort Credit SystemRecommended

Credit labor hours at a replacement wage (about $17-18/hour). Pick one rule before the day: take the credit off the cook’s share, or add it to the pool. Settle the difference.

✓ Values all contribution types✓ Transparent and negotiable✗ Requires honest time tracking✗ Needs the rate and the rule agreed up front
The Host Subsidy ModelHost-Friendly

Non-hosts split all costs including host’s purchases. Host contributes their venue and labor as their share.

✓ Recognizes hosting burden✓ Simple to explain✗ Host may feel over-compensated✗ Doesn’t scale for small groups

What if a guest can’t bring their potluck dish?

Offer cash for what the dish would have cost, and give it to whoever covered the gap. In a potluck the dish is the guest’s share of the meal. When the rolls don’t arrive, the host or another guest buys them, and that person now carries a cost that was yours.

Etiquette advice points the same way. CNBC Make It reported etiquette expert Diane Gottsman’s advice in November 2025: if the host has explicitly asked guests to bring side dishes or snacks and you don’t have time to stop at a store, it’s polite to offer to chip in financially.

How much cash replaces a dish?

The receipt for the replacement, if there is one. If someone covered the dish without a receipt, for example from their own pantry, use the grocery price of the dish. If nobody replaced it, there is nothing to cover. The Farm Bureau’s 2025 survey priced each item on its classic 10-serving list:

Dish on the Farm Bureau list2025 average price
1 dozen dinner rolls $3.56
12-ounce bag of fresh cranberries $2.28
1 pound of frozen peas $2.03
14 ounces of cubed stuffing mix $3.71
3 pounds of sweet potatoes $4.00
Pumpkin pie: pie mix, 2 frozen crusts, half pint of whipping cream $9.40 (our sum of $4.16, $3.37 and $1.87)

These are national averages of ingredient prices collected by volunteer shoppers, not the price of a finished dish. A finished dish from a bakery or deli is priced differently, and your local store will differ too. That is why the replacement receipt is the better peg when there is one.

Why is cash acceptable here at all, when money between friends often feels wrong? Research on money in social exchange suggests that money fits some exchanges and not others. In a study that distributed questionnaires to 400 households in four neighborhoods, Paul Webley and Stephen Lea found that money was an acceptable form of repayment only for a “loan” of food. For the other kinds of neighborly help they asked about, money was mostly rejected because it would break a social convention, and people strongly preferred to repay help with the same kind of help.

Our reading for a potluck: the study covered neighbors, not holiday dinners, so treat this as a guide and not a rule. Food is the case where cash sat most easily. Matching the amount to the dish is our own suggestion: the study tested the form of repayment, not the amount. The same study points to an order of preference: if you can still bring something, tell the host early and bring what you can. Cash is the fallback.

Is cash for the dish the same as cash for the host gift?

No. The dish was a share of the meal, so it has a price to match. A host gift does not. Elaine Swann told CNBC that a gift of wine or another food item “should not be something that you expect them to pair with their meal,” and should be purely a gift for the host. So swap cash for the dish, and keep the gift a gift.

Money as a present is a harder sell. In Paul Webley and Richenda Wilson’s 1989 study, students ranked possible gifts by acceptability and named an amount they would spend on each person, and money was generally unacceptable as a present whatever the relationship. A separate set of experiments by A. Peter McGraw and Philip Tetlock found moral outrage and confusion when people were asked whether they would let market-pricing norms influence decisions that belong to communal relationships. Neither study tested a potluck. Our reading: grocery money attaches to groceries, which already have a price. A host gift is a thank-you, not a share of the meal, so it has no price to match. Hosting hours that your group agrees to credit, as described above, are a separate settlement and not a gift.

Sources: CNBC Make It, “‘Don’t ask your guests for money:’ Party tips from etiquette experts” (November 29, 2025); American Farm Bureau Federation, “Cost of Thanksgiving Dinner Declines” (November 19, 2025); Webley & Lea, “The Partial Unacceptability of Money in Repayment for Neighborly Help,” Human Relations 46(1) (1993); Webley & Wilson, “Social Relationships and the Unacceptability of Money as a Gift,” The Journal of Social Psychology 129(1) (1989); McGraw & Tetlock, “Taboo Trade-Offs, Relational Framing, and the Acceptability of Exchanges,” Journal of Consumer Psychology 15(1) (2005).

What do the Thanksgiving groceries actually cost?

About $55 for a classic menu for 10 people. The American Farm Bureau Federation prices the same classic Thanksgiving menu every year, and its most recent survey, published in November 2025, puts the groceries for 10 people at $55.18. If your group also splits an office or family holiday party, the same gap between receipts and effort applies there.

$55.18Classic Thanksgiving groceries for 10 (2025)
$5.52Per person, about
$21.50Average price of a 16-pound frozen turkey

The 2025 figure is a 5% decrease from 2024 and the third straight year of declines, after a record $64.05 in 2022. The Farm Bureau describes the survey as informal: volunteer shoppers price a fixed list of turkey, stuffing, sweet potatoes, rolls, peas, cranberries, a veggie tray, and pumpkin pie. Your list will differ. The Farm Bureau’s list has no wine on it.

Now set the example’s labor beside it. This is an illustration and not a measurement: neither source records how long that menu takes to cook. Maya’s five cooking hours at the $16.98 median wage for food preparation workers come to $84.90.

$84.90The example’s five cooking hours at the BLS median wage for food preparation workers. For comparison, the Farm Bureau’s grocery list for 10 people is $55.18.

Sources: American Farm Bureau Federation, “Cost of Thanksgiving Dinner Declines” (November 19, 2025); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025 national estimates. The $84.90 figure is 5 hours multiplied by $16.98.

How to have the conversation

Have it before the dinner, and settle the rate and the rule in the same message. Our view is that when and how you raise cost sharing matters as much as the method you choose.

Set expectations before, not after

In the group chat: “Thinking we do effort credits this year. $17/hour for cooking and hosting time, taken off the cook’s share, receipts split by who shared what. Fair?” Agreeing before the dinner is easier than raising it after.

Frame it as fairness, not accounting

“I want to make sure Maya isn’t subsidizing us after all that cooking” lands better than “Let’s calculate everyone’s hourly contribution.”

Let the receipt settle the grocery part

Take each person’s item shares from the receipt and not from one friend’s memory. That leaves one number to agree by hand: the labor credit.

Build in a generosity buffer

Round down what’s owed. If someone owes $68.63, make it $65. The goodwill from not nickel-and-diming is worth more than the $3.63.

Where does splitty fit?

splitty handles the receipts. It does not price labor hours. The group agrees the rate and the rule, and the labor credit is settled on top of what the receipts show. For the receipt half of a Friendsgiving, this is what splitty does:

Maya’s $87 grocery run is one long itemized receipt→splitty scans the receipt and reads the line items
Not everyone shared everything→Items start split among everyone; tap to remove a person from an item they skipped
The receipt total includes tax→Tax is distributed in proportion to each person’s share
Nobody wants to chase payments after dinner→Each person gets a pre-filled payment request in their preferred payment app; only one person needs splitty

FAQ

Friendsgiving cost sharing — quick answers

Short answers to the questions that come up when one friend cooks and everyone eats.

01 What is a fair hourly rate for the person who cooks Friendsgiving?
Use a replacement-cost rate: what the group would pay someone else to do the work. In May 2025 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the median hourly wage is $16.98 for food preparation workers and $17.98 for restaurant cooks, so about $17-18 an hour is a defensible rate. The National Research Council recommends replacement cost over the cook’s own wage for valuing home production time.
02 Should the labor credit be added to the pool or deducted from the cook’s share?
They are different splits. Adding hours to the pool can pay the cook in cash: in a four-person example at $15 an hour, a cook with 8 hours and $87 of groceries ends $36.38 ahead. Deducting the credit from the cook’s own share caps the benefit at a free dinner, and the group must say who covers the removed share. For a dinner among friends, the deduct rule is our suggested default. It needs at least one person with no hours to cover the removed share.
03 Should the Friendsgiving host pay less?
Yes, if the group counts hosting time. Count hosting and cleaning hours at the same hourly rate as cooking hours, and agree the hours before the day. One rate for all the work keeps the math short.
04 What should a guest do if they can’t bring their potluck dish?
Tell the host early and bring what you can. If someone else covers the dish, offer them cash for what it cost: the replacement receipt if there is one, or the grocery price. If nobody replaces it, there is nothing to pay. In the Farm Bureau’s 2025 survey a dozen dinner rolls averaged $3.56. Keep the host gift separate. Cash can stand in for a share of the food, but in a 1989 study, students rated money as generally unacceptable as a present.
05 Can splitty split Friendsgiving costs?
splitty splits the receipts. It scans an itemized grocery receipt, starts every item split among everyone, lets you tap to remove a person from an item they skipped, distributes tax in proportion to each person’s share, and sends each person a pre-filled payment request. splitty does not price labor hours, so the group agrees the labor credit and settles it separately.

Related guides

Vacation Rental Grocery Splitting
The 3-category system for shared groceries
Why Fair Splits Matter
The psychology of splitting bills fairly
Birthday Dinner Guide
When one person shouldn’t pay at all

More in Who Pays

All Guides

Sources

  1. 1 Inequity in Social Exchange J. Stacy Adams, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1965
  2. 2 A New Perspective on Equity Theory: The Equity Sensitivity Construct Richard C. Huseman, John D. Hatfield, Edward W. Miles, Academy of Management Review, 1987
  3. 3 A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation Ernst Fehr, Klaus M. Schmidt, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1999
  4. 4 Beyond the Market: Designing Nonmarket Accounts for the United States National Research Council, The National Academies Press, 2005
  5. 5 Accounting for Household Production in the National Accounts, 1965–2010 Benjamin Bridgman, Andrew Dugan, Mikhael Lal, Matthew Osborne, Shaunda Villones, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2012
  6. 6 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, May 2025 national estimates U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
  7. 7 Minimum Wage U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor
  8. 8 A Fine is a Price Uri Gneezy, Aldo Rustichini, The Journal of Legal Studies, 2000
  9. 9 Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All Uri Gneezy, Aldo Rustichini, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2000
  10. 10 Mental Accounting Matters Richard Thaler, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1999
  11. 11 Cost of Thanksgiving Dinner Declines American Farm Bureau Federation, American Farm Bureau Federation, 2025
  12. 12 The Partial Unacceptability of Money in Repayment for Neighborly Help Paul Webley, Stephen E. G. Lea, Human Relations, 1993
  13. 13 Social Relationships and the Unacceptability of Money as a Gift Paul Webley, Richenda Wilson, The Journal of Social Psychology, 1989
  14. 14 Taboo Trade-Offs, Relational Framing, and the Acceptability of Exchanges A. Peter McGraw, Philip E. Tetlock, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2005

Order what you want.

Three free bills, then $9.99 a year, or $24.99 once.