THE END CONSUMER: WHERE THE BURDEN STOPS

 

THE END CONSUMER: 

WHERE THE BURDEN STOPS

(What the expression made me think about)

Recently, I came across the expression "end consumer." It names the person who finally uses a product or service. It is an ordinary business term, but it made me stop and think.

The phrase began to sound like "the end of the line": the place where costs and difficulties arrive after others have passed them along. That is my interpretation, not the definition of the term. But it raises a question worth examining: when a business or institution encounters a problem, how much of that problem eventually becomes the responsibility of the person it is supposed to serve?

A business may respond to higher costs by raising prices. An institution may respond to limited resources by reducing assistance or requiring people to do more for themselves. At the receiving end, people must find more money, do more work, or wait. The difficulty has not necessarily disappeared. It may simply have changed hands.

When the Unresolved Problem becomes Yours:

I recently tried to schedule a mammogram at the hospital in Taos. I called, was transferred to the scheduler, and left a message with my telephone number. More than a week later, I called again and left another message. I still had not received a response.

During a subsequent doctor's visit, I mentioned this to a nurse. She told me that staff were overwhelmed and

scheduling requests were running behind. I cannot establish the cause of that particular backlog from this conversation alone. But I can describe what it required of me: repeated calls, waiting, and uncertainty about when I could obtain an appointment.

Inside an institution, the explanation may concern staffing, funding, or workload. Outside it, the result is a person trying to obtain a service without a clear way forward.

Researchers use the term "administrative burden" to describe costs people encounter when dealing with government programs and procedures. These include finding out what to do, meeting requirements, and coping with stress or a loss of control. Although this research concerns public administration, it offers a useful way to think about the effort required to obtain services. (1)

The Administrative Conference of the United States has examined how agencies can identify and reduce unnecessary burdens on the public. Its work recognizes the importance of understanding people's experiences when evaluating administrative processes. (2)

That leads to a simple question: has an institution reduced the work required to provide a service, or has it left part of that work for someone else to do? With higher prices, fewer choices.

At the supermarket, the burden is more visible because it appears on the receipt.

Economists call the transfer of changes in business costs into prices cost pass-through. It is not automatic or always complete. A business may absorb some increases, and its ability to raise prices depends on market conditions and customers' responses. (3)

Nevertheless, when an increase reaches a household, that household cannot simply raise its income to match. People can buy less, choose cheaper products, postpone purchases, or give something else up. These are ways of managing a burden, not evidence that the burden has vanished.

Giving up an optional purchase is also different from reducing spending on something necessary. Economic analysis identifies customers' ability and willingness to change their purchases as one factor affecting how

costs are passed on. A choice on paper is not necessarily an easy choice in practice. (4)

This is what interests me about the position of the end consumer. Others may have some ability to transfer costs onward. At the household level, those costs become decisions about daily life. Not everyone can absorb the same demands.

A higher price or complicated procedure does not affect everyone equally. Someone with enough money may pay more without changing much else. Someone with time and assistance may manage a difficult application or keep pursuing an unanswered request. Others have far less room to absorb those demands.

Research on "administrative burden" explains how the effort required to understand and comply with procedures can obstruct access to public programs. A program's existence, therefore, does not by itself establish that people can successfully use it. (5)

This does not mean that the person with the greatest need always receives the least. But it raises a serious question: does obtaining help require resources that the people needing help have in limited supply? A service may formally be available while remaining difficult to reach.

How Prices are decided:

Higher operating costs are not the only issue. There are also questions about the tools businesses use to determine prices.

In January 2025, the Federal Trade Commission released initial findings from its investigation of surveillance pricing. It described pricing intermediaries with access to detailed consumer information, including location, browsing history, and shopping behavior, that could be used to tailor prices and offers.

These were preliminary findings, not proof that every retailer uses such methods or that every practice is unlawful. (6)

A separate concern is whether pricing software can weaken competition. In its 2024 lawsuit against RealPage, the United States Department of Justice alleged that the company's rental-pricing software used confidential information from competing landlords in ways that harmed competition. (7)

In November 2025, the department announced a proposed settlement requiring changes to information sharing and other practices. Allegations must be distinguished from proven findings, and a proposed settlement is not a judgment establishing every claim. (8)

Using software to set prices is not automatically wrongdoing. But these examples show why higher prices should not automatically be explained as unavoidable responses to higher costs. We also need to ask what information businesses possess, how they use it, and whether customers have meaningful alternatives.

Employees and Service Users are not Enemies

When people ask for an institution to change, they may encounter another objection: restructuring could threaten employees' jobs. That concern deserves attention. People's livelihoods do matter. 

An overworked scheduler and a patient unable to obtain an appointment may both be struggling with the same system. Treating their interests as opposing interests can distract from decisions about resources, management, and organization. 

The International Labour Organization's work on a just transition, developed principally around environmental and economic change, emphasizes protecting workers while pursuing change. It does not provide a ready-made solution to hospital scheduling, but it offers a useful principle: worker protection can be part of planning reform, rather than simply a reason to reject it. (9)

Working conditions and individual conduct must also be distinguished. Recognizing that employees face pressure does not mean dismissing every complaint about how people are treated. The question is not whether workers or service users matter more. It is how an institution can take responsibility for both.

What this Argument does - and does Not - Claim

These problems are not exclusive to capitalism. Administrative burdens also arise in public institutions; the research discussed here examines interactions between citizens and government. Nor does every price increase indicates exploitation, or every delay establishes neglect. Different failures require different explanations. (10)

My argument is this: an institution can save money or reduce its own workload by shifting costs and work onto the people who depend on it. The burden has not disappeared; someone else is carrying it.

That possibility deserves attention whether the institution is a private business or a public agency. Financial viability matters, but it does not answer every question about whether a service works for its users. We need to count more than the costs appearing in an institution's accounts. We also need to consider the time, effort, and resources required from the people outside it.

Where the Burden stops

What began for me as a question about a business expression became a question about responsibility. Who can pass a difficulty onward? Who has the authority to change an arrangement? And who must accommodate the consequences when nothing changes?

The end consumer is not necessarily powerless. But neither should we assume that the ability to complain, change suppliers, or make another telephone call provides an adequate answer.

A service should be judged not only by whether it exists, but by whether people can obtain and use it. A saving should be examined not only for what it removes from one budget, but for what it demands from someone else.

At the end of the chain, an unresolved institutional problem becomes part of a person's life. 

That person, as in you, me, and a whole bunch of other people do belong in the accounting!

Source Notes

1. Donald Moynihan, Pamela Herd, and Hope Harvey, "Administrative Burden: Learning, Psychological, and Compliance Costs in

Citizen-State Interactions," Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 25, no. 1 (2015): 43-69.

https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article-abstract/25/1/43/885957

2. Administrative Conference of the United States, "Identifying and Reducing Burdens in Administrative Processes," research project and final report, December 5, 2023. 

https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/identifying-and-reducing-burdens-administrative-processes

3. Office of Fair Trading, Cost Pass-Through: Theory, Measurement and Policy Implications, published June 17, 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-pass-through-theory-measurement-and-policy-implications

4. Office of Fair Trading, Cost Pass-Through: Theory, Measurement and Policy Implications (2014). See note 3.

5. Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey, "Administrative Burden" (2015). See note 1.

6. Federal Trade Commission, "FTC Surveillance Pricing Study Indicates Wide Range of Personal Data Used to Set Individualized Consumer Prices," January 17, 2025. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-surveillance-pricing-study-indi

cates-wide-range-personal-data-used-set-individualized-consumer

7. United States Department of Justice, "Justice Department Sues RealPage for Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Millions of

American Renters," August 23, 2024.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-realpage-algorithmic-pricing-scheme-harms-millions-american-renters

8. United States Department of Justice, "Justice Department Requires RealPage to End the Sharing of Competitively Sensitive

Information and Other Anticompetitive Practices in Proposed Settlement," November 24, 2025.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-requires-realpage-end-sharing-competitively-sensitive-information-and

9. International Labour Organization, "Just Transition towards Environmentally Sustainable Economies and Societies," topic overview.

https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/just-transition-towards-environmentally-sustainable-economies-and-societies

10. Moynihan, Herd, and Harvey, "Administrative Burden" (2015). See note 1.

WHEN A COURT ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH

 WHEN A COURT ORDER IS NOT ENOUGH

I know that many people already understand the court system and follow legal news closely. This essay is not mainly for them. It is for people who hear that a judge has issued an order, that the White House has been told to do something, that there will be an appeal or a hearing, and then wonder why the people in power seem able to carry on doing what they want.

I am not a lawyer. I am an ordinary citizen trying to understand why rules that can come down so hard on ordinary people seem so difficult to enforce when the person breaking them holds great power.

This week, federal Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Donald Trump, ordered the White House to restore press credentials for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico. The White House had barred those news organizations from access. Judge Kelly found that the ban was likely unlawful and ordered that access be restored immediately.

But something happened that ought to concern every one of us. Even after the judge’s order, reporters from those outlets were initially refused entry. Their access was eventually restored, but the delay matters.

It may sound like a small dispute about press passes. It is not. It is a small, clear example of a much larger problem: a judge can issue an order, but an order is only meaningful if powerful people obey it.

There is another important detail. This was not the first time Judge Kelly had faced this kind of conduct from Donald Trump’s White House. In 2018, the administration revoked CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House credential after a contentious press conference. Judge Kelly ruled that Acosta’s right to fair process had likely been violated and ordered the credential restored.

The White House then restored Acosta’s pass, issued new rules for reporters, and CNN dropped its lawsuit because the immediate problem had been resolved. The administration did not appeal and lose. It backed down before there was an appeal.

That matters because the principle was already clear. Once the White House grants a reporter access, it cannot simply take that access away arbitrarily. It must give a clear reason, notice, and a fair chance to respond. Yet eight years later, the same president’s White House was again testing essentially the same boundary, forcing journalists back into court to defend a protection they had effectively already won.

Most ordinary people understand what can happen when they do not obey a court. If a person repeatedly ignores a judge’s order, fails to comply with legal conditions, refuses a subpoena, or disobeys a lawful directive, there can be consequences. Fines may increase. Property can be seized. A person can be held in contempt. In some circumstances, a person can go to jail.

So why does it look so different when the person involved is the president or a powerful administration?

Part of the answer is that the legal system is slow by design. There are hearings. Lawyers argue. Judges need evidence. Orders may be appealed. Higher courts may issue stays. All of that exists for good reasons. We do not want a country where judges can punish people without facts, procedure, or a chance for review.

But there is another side to that careful process. A powerful government can use it to delay. It can act first and let the harm happen now. It can make people find lawyers, go to court, wait for a hearing, answer legal arguments, and wait again for an appeal. It can comply late, comply only partly, or change the wording of a policy and begin the whole process again.

That means delay can become a kind of victory. A person’s rights may eventually be recognized, but only after the damage is done.

We have also seen that courts, especially the Supreme Court, Courts can move very quickly when they choose to. The Supreme Court has an emergency process that allows it to act in days, sometimes even faster, without the normal long process of complete briefing, oral argument, and a fully explained opinion.

That raises a plain question: if the Court can act quickly when a government asks for help, why must ordinary people so often wait months or years while their rights, benefits, homes, families, safety, or livelihoods are at stake?

This is not an argument that every decision against Trump is correct, or that every court decision in his favor is wrong. Appeals are sometimes necessary. Courts should review cases fairly. The question is whether the rules are applied equally, and whether justice arrives in time to matter.

Judge Kelly’s decision is important precisely because he was appointed by Trump. It shows that not every judge is willing to excuse conduct simply because of who committed it. The restoration of press access was a real and important result.

But it is not enough to say, “The court ruled, so the system worked.”

The larger question is whether a court order is obeyed immediately and completely, or whether people in power can test it, delay it, comply only after pressure, and then try again years later. If they can, then the burden of enforcing the law is shifted away from the powerful people breaking it and onto the people harmed by it.

Courts must do more than announce rights after the fact. They must be able to protect those rights while protection can still make a difference.

If a president can remove journalists, deny access, wait until forced to comply, and later try something similar again, the issue is larger than one press pass or one news organization. The issue is whether a court order has the same force against political power that it has against an ordinary citizen.

The purpose of the courts is not to make us admire legal language. Their purpose is to ensure that power has limits. If those limits can be postponed, evaded, or endlessly re-litigated whenever they inconvenience the powerful, then the law is not protecting people equally.

The courts do not belong only to lawyers, judges, presidents, wealthy donors, corporations, or those who can afford endless litigation. They belong to all of us.

And every ordinary citizen has the right to ask: when a court speaks, who has to listen? Who must obey at once—and who is allowed to wait, delay, appeal, distract, and act as though the order does not fully apply to them?

Letter # 4 09/22/26

 

"OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION HARMONY"

Updated Guidelines for Responsible Presidential Coverage

"For Security, Efficiency, and Continued Confidence in the American Public Press System"

Dear Members of the Press,

The Administration is pleased to announce updated procedures designed to strengthen the important relationship between the United States government and the journalists who have been granted the opportunity to describe it correctly.

These guidelines will ensure a safer, smoother, more respectful press environment for everyone, particularly for those whose work may otherwise create unnecessary confusion by mentioning events that occurred, statements that were made, or questions that remain unanswered.

-Credential Renewal

All White House credentials will be renewed according to the highest standards of professionalism. 

Professionalism will be determined by a reporter’s demonstrated ability to avoid hostile facts, inconvenient video recordings, previously published statements, and questions that contain an unhelpful amount of memory.

Journalists who have shown a persistent interest in accuracy may be asked to undergo additional review.

-Questions

To promote orderly communication, all questions must be submitted at least thirty days before the event at which they may not be answered. Questions should be brief, respectful, patriotic, and constructed in a manner that permits a satisfactory response.

The following questions may require special authorization:

-Questions beginning with “Why.”

-Questions beginning with “How.”

-Questions containing dates, numbers, quotations, or verifiable facts.

-Questions based on previous statements by the President, members of the Administration, or anyone capable of remembering them. Follow-up questions of any kind.

Approved questions may be revised for clarity, tone, and historical compatibility.

-Pool Coverage

The White House television pool remains a valued partner in sharing official events with the American public.

To ensure broad and balanced coverage, pool participation will be reserved for networks that demonstrate an established commitment to reporting the Administration’s preferred version of events with appropriate warmth and minimal interpretation.

Cameras should remain directed toward approved speakers, approved flags, and approved applause.

Should an event contain material unsuitable for public viewing, the pool will receive a written description of what would have happened, had it been appropriate for anyone to see it.

-Security Measures

For the safety of all participants, journalists carrying notebooks, microphones, cameras, recording devices, legal knowledge, or excessive curiosity may be subject to additional screening.

Questions, observations, photographs, and visible skepticism may also be inspected before entering the premises.

These procedures are not intended to limit reporting. They are intended to ensure that reporting remains within secure and manageable limits.

-Corrections and Clarifications

Any report that differs from an official statement may contain an error. 

Such reports should be corrected promptly, preferably before publication, and certainly before anyone notices.

To assist the press, the Administration will provide approved descriptions of events, approved context, approved adjectives, and, when necessary, approved memories.

The phrase “unprecedented success” is encouraged wherever contextually or spiritually appropriate.

-Legal Clarification

Journalists are encouraged to address any concerns through the appropriate channels.

Please do not sue us; we will sue you first, thereby saving everyone valuable time and preserving the orderly administration of justice.

-Access Alternatives

Journalists who are denied access may continue their important work by quoting official statements, reviewing approved social-media posts, and refraining from reading the replies.

This process will allow the public to remain fully informed without the complications created by independent observation. 

FINAL REMINDER

A free press is essential to democracy.

That is why it must be handled with care.

Thank you for your cooperation, your professionalism, and your continued willingness to report responsibly.

(This document is satire. It is not an actual government directive.)

Letter # 2

 "DEPARTMENT OF INHUMAN SERVICES"

A satirical letter

A note before you read: 

This is satire. It is not aimed at the overworked employees who often try their best to help people. It is aimed at the bureaucratic and political systems that make it so hard for people in need to receive basic help.

DEPARTMENT OF INHUMAN SERVICES

Office of Administrative Empathy and Compassion

Dear Valued Applicant,

Thank you for informing us that you are hungry, ill, elderly, disabled, unemployed, unhoused, grieving, overwhelmed, or otherwise experiencing a temporary difficulty lasting longer than we find convenient.

We are pleased to tell you that help may be available, provided that you can document your need in triplicate; locate a working printer; produce a permanent address; remain on hold during normal business hours; remember every password created since 2014; and demonstrate, to our satisfaction, that you are too desperate to survive without assistance but still organized enough to navigate our website.

Please note that our representatives are deeply committed to serving you, although they are currently unavailable due to unusually high call volume. This call volume consists largely of people attempting to reach us after being told, by another department, that we are the department responsible for helping them.

If you are unable to complete the required online application because you lack internet service, computer access, transportation, identification, a telephone, a stable residence, or the emotional stamina to begin again after the page times out, please visit our website for further instructions.

Applicants who miss a deadline because they were hospitalized, caring for a family member, escaping violence, attending a funeral, working two jobs, or waiting on hold with our office may be found ineligible. We understand that emergencies can be inconvenient.

To protect your dignity, you may be asked to repeat your most painful circumstances to several different employees, automated systems, contracted call centers, and an online chatbot that is unable to understand the word “representative.”

Your information is important to us. Therefore, it may be misplaced, entered incorrectly, requested again, or held for review until the immediate crisis has passed and your need is no longer considered urgent.

Should you receive a denial notice, please do not be discouraged. You have the right to appeal within ten days of the date printed on the notice, which may arrive after the appeal period has expired. 

We appreciate your patience, resilience, documentation, transportation, internet access, literacy, emotional stability, and willingness to prove that you deserve to remain alive.

Thank you for choosing the Department of Inhuman Services

We see you!

Please take a number.

Sincerely,

The Office of Administrative Empathy and Compassion

Letter # 3

 

"Official Voter Guidance: New Procedures for Your Protection

Issued by the Department of Electoral Convenience

"Safeguarding democracy from the dangerous possibility that too many people may participate in it."

Dear Voter,

Congratulations. You have expressed an interest in voting.

We applaud your civic spirit and are pleased to confirm that your vote remains important to us, provided, naturally, that you can satisfy a few straightforward requirements designed to preserve confidence, order, efficiency, and the general comfort of people who are not you.

Please read the following instructions carefully. Failure to comply with any portion may result in your vote being protected from being counted.

Registration

Before voting, please confirm that you are registered.

Then confirm that you are registered to confirm that you are registered.

Please ensure that your name, address, date of birth, hair color, childhood nickname, and current level of patriotism match precisely across every document you have ever encountered.

If you have married, divorced, moved, changed your name, misplaced a utility bill, or been born under a slightly different name than the one on your government identification, we encourage you to begin resolving these matters immediately. Preferably several years ago.

Identification

For your convenience, please bring a current photo identification card, proof of residence, proof that you are the same person depicted in the photograph, and a notarized statement from a responsible adult confirming that you have shown good character for at least the preceding decade.

Documents that have expired, been folded, gotten wet, or failed to inspire complete confidence may be rejected in the interest of election integrity.

Please remember: requiring you to demonstrate your identity repeatedly is not intended to inconvenience you. It is intended to reassure you that we take your identity very seriously.

Voting by Mail

If you vote by mail, please request your ballot well in advance, ideally before you are aware that an election is taking place.

Upon receiving it, complete the ballot immediately, using only the approved shade of black or blue ink, maintaining a calm hand and an attitude of appropriate gratitude.

Do not fold, crease, smudge, staple, clip, tape, decorate, breathe upon, or look at the ballot in a way that could compromise its integrity.

Return it before the deadline, while also allowing sufficient time for weather, traffic, postal delays, unexpected acts of nature, changing rules, and the possibility that the deadline may be interpreted differently by several people with legal authority.

For added confidence, voters are encouraged to hand-deliver their ballot to an officially approved, properly supervised, adequately illuminated drop box during a brief period of time that will be announced after it has ended.

Voting in Person

In-person voting remains available to all eligible citizens with sufficient determination, mobility, paperwork, free time, transportation, child care, work flexibility, physical stamina, and access to weather-appropriate clothing.

Please arrive early, but not too early. Bring water, snacks, medication, sunscreen, a hat, a portable chair, a fully charged phone, and an unshakable belief in representative government.

Should you encounter a long line, please regard it not as an obstacle but as a valuable opportunity to reflect upon the sacred privilege of waiting. Your employer may not understand why you need several hours to participate in democracy. We encourage you to explain that your vote is a cherished right, and that you are only asking to use it.

Election-Day Conduct

To ensure a peaceful and orderly process, voters are asked to remain patient, courteous, and quietly grateful throughout all procedures.

Please do not ask why the rules change so often. 

Please do not ask why a task that once took ten minutes now requires three forms, two websites, and a witness with a functioning printer.

Questions are welcome, provided they have already been answered somewhere difficult to locate.

Final Reminder

Your vote is precious.

That is why we have worked so hard to make sure you understand how much effort it should require.

Thank you for doing your part to protect democracy by proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you deserve to take part in it.

PS This document is satire. For real registration, identification, mail-ballot, early-voting, polling-place, and deadline information, consult your state or local election office, or begin at Vote.gov. Actual rules vary by state; official federal resources direct voters to state and local offices for those details."

Letter # 1

 Letter # 1

This idea came to me after reading my friend Janna's comment regarding her blind husband under yesterday's text.

OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL OVERSIGHT

Eyeball Compliance Division

“Because no condition is permanent until it has been re-proven every ninety days.”

Dear Sir,

Our records indicate that you have been blind since birth. Before we can continue the services that allow you to live your life, however, we require updated proof that this condition has not resolved itself since our last assessment.

Please complete the enclosed forty-seven-page questionnaire, answering all questions fully and honestly. 

If you are unable to read the questionnaire, this may be relevant to your claim, although it will not excuse you from completing it.

Kindly indicate whether, during the last ninety days, you have:

- Grown a pair of surprise replacement eyes.

- Begun seeing clearly through determination, positive thinking, or improved paperwork.

- Experienced an unexpected recovery in the eyeball department.

- Considered becoming less blind in order to make our records easier to manage.

Please note that if you can make yourself a cup of tea

without help, answer a telephone, and find the bathroom in your own home, this may be taken as evidence that you no longer require assistance.

Further, if you are elderly, disabled, chronically ill, in pain, or trying very hard not to collapse under the weight of ordinary life, please remember that any appearance of coping may be used against you.

The fact that you have a caregiver, a therapist, a caseworker, medication, friends, a cane, a list, a calendar, a kettle, or a good dog may suggest that you are suspiciously close to being fine. 

If you do not return this form by the deadline, your services may be interrupted. If you do return it, we may require additional evidence, a second opinion, a fresh form, another assessment, and perhaps a signed affidavit from someone who has personally witnessed your continued lack of sight.

Please be advised that all therapy and caseworker time spent completing this paperwork will be counted as proof that you have received excellent care.

At the Department of Physical Oversight, we are dedicated to reducing anxiety, preserving dignity, and ensuring that no one receives help one day longer than absolutely necessary.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

The Eyeball Compliance Division

through it (version 2.trashed the first)...

yeah

I know the rules.

plenty of smart people

write about them

online, in magazines.

don’t get attached.

don’t get pulled in.

stay objective.

stay in control. 

Right, lol.

it all makes sense,

in theory.

but here I am,

two hours deep

into the unsteady hum

of body and breath.

where the walls tilt.

the air presses close.

I could climb them,

these walls,

if I could find my footing

inside my own skin.

it feels like

my head is swelling

with static and light,

like the only door out,

is through.

so I go.

step by step.

moment by moment.

until the air softens.

and the noise fades.

is the story finished?

for me, not yet.

for you, maybe, yes, no?

I don't know. 

don't worry.

it's the only sure step in life.

Corinne Wesley ©️ 7/19/2026