It’s About Time: How Income, Social Context, and Technology Shape the Economics of Waiting
Though one may not think of waiting as representing much beyond a hassle, it actually embodies one of the quintessential features of modern economics: people's access to goods and services is mediated by income and social status. Waiting can be a form of payment; those who have a lower income must "pay" in time what they are unable to pay with money. This unequal use of time hides deeper inequalities in our society, be it in public healthcare or basic government services. Accordingly, the distribution of waiting reflects the overall distribution of power and income in society.
A 2023 study examined the unequal burdens created by essential services. It found that in settings like government offices, healthcare providers, and transportation agencies, low-income people were 3% more likely to spend time waiting for a service. These wait times averaged 12 minutes longer than those with higher incomes, amounting to over six additional hours of waiting annually (Herd & Moynihan, 2023). Even when controlling for demographic factors, family obligations, and education, this pattern persisted, revealing that this difference isn’t due to chance; unequal wait times are embedded within the structural design of service systems rather than due to individual choices. The study also analyzed how race further perpetuated this inequality: higher-income Black individuals experienced wait times similar to lower-income people and significantly longer than white individuals of comparable incomes. This gap suggests that the inequality in waiting is not a matter of personal decision-making but a systemic outcome shaped by how institutions allocate resources, manage service queues, and prioritize different individuals (Schwartz, 1974).
There are three main factors that contribute to these disparities in wait times. The first is job flexibility and opportunity cost. Generally, people with lower incomes work hourly jobs with rigid schedules and have limited time off, leaving them with less opportunities to run errands during off-peak hours or navigate bureaucratic processes without sacrificing much-needed wages. In contrast, higher-income individuals usually have jobs with more flexible hours, affording them more opportunities to access services during off-peak times and make the most of their time (Mosquera & Mastracci, 2025). Such flexibility in scheduling enables people to convert their income advantage into a structural one, allowing them to buy time and convenience in the economy. This dynamic suggests that the lowest-income individuals bear a double burden, since they will not only waste time but also sacrifice money by trying to get the services they need.
The second factor is neighborhood and service access, which creates deep structural barriers. Low-income communities often have fewer services in their immediate vicinity, longer travel times to services, and under-resourced institutions. Lack of access to grocery stores, banks, health centers, and government offices makes residents dedicate more time both reaching and waiting to get essential services (Schuetz, Kolko, & Meltzer, 2012). In contrast, higher-income individuals typically enjoy living in areas with greater availability of services that are well-resourced and staffed with workers who are not overextended; hence, they are able to receive services more swiftly. This uneven geography of access means time itself becomes yet another manifestation of inequality—those in wealthier neighborhoods are served by systems built around convenience, while those in poorer areas face a cumulative crush of delays at every turn. In the end, the configuration of these systems reinforces the broader economic divide, assuring that those with fewer resources continue to bear the heaviest load.
The third and final driver of this inequality is knowledge which amplifies existing inequalities. People with higher-incomes often have more social and informational capital, which provides them with the confidence and means to navigate situations and advocate for themselves. They trust the system will work for them, so they are more likely to use their informal networks of friends, colleagues, or acquaintances in similar income brackets to find shortcuts or insider knowledge that grease the wheels in their interactions with institutions. In Denmark, for example, a study found that patients with higher incomes and more education have shorter wait times because they are more assertive, adaptable, and aware of how to use healthcare services (Simonson et al., 2020). This proves that waiting times are closely linked to social status and income, demonstrating how social and economic hierarchies influence access even in equitable systems. In contrast, lower-income individuals typically lack the same information, connections, or confidence to challenge a system they often see as unresponsive or stacked against them (Greenberg, 2015). This suggests that awareness and experience with how systems operate can be just as valuable as money itself, as those who know how to navigate the system get faster and more reliable access to essential services.
This demonstrates how waiting is just one example of a broader phenomenon: non-monetary rationing, in which the distribution of goods and services depends on variables other than money, such as time, effort, or social status. Waiting, then, is a way that people "pay" through the inconvenience rather than the direct financial cost of a good or service. One very clear example of this effect can be seen in publicly funded healthcare systems. A study into England's National Health Service showed that patients from poorer areas had to wait 7-14% longer for elective treatments than more affluent patients, even though care is nominally universal (Laudicella, Siciliani, & Cookson, 2012). This shows that even in systems set up to guarantee equal access, disparities persist nonetheless. The distribution of waiting demonstrates how time is a kind of currency that is distributed based on knowledge, social standing, and income. Even systems designed to guarantee universal access—such as public health care—include persistent inequalities in wait times, suggesting that fairness in principle is not necessarily fairness in practice. This highlights an important need for future research: if time can be “spent” or “saved” like money, societies may need to reconceptualize the value of time itself to create systems that distribute it more equitably.
Edited by Caitlin Williams
References
Brammli Greenberg, S. (2015). Inequalities in waiting times by socioeconomic status – a possible causal mechanism. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 4(1).
Briceno-Mosquera, A., & Mastracci, S. (2025). Gauging the Gap: Inequality of Time Use When Seeking Government Services. Journal of Social Equity and Public Administration, 3(2), 262–281.
Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2023). Fewer Burdens but Greater Inequality? Reevaluating the Safety Net through the Lens of Administrative Burden. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 706(1), 94–117.
Laudicella, M., Siciliani, L., & Cookson, R. (2012). Waiting times and socioeconomic status: Evidence from England. Social Science & Medicine, 74(9), 1331–1341.
Schwartz, B. (1974). Waiting, Exchange, and Power: The Distribution of Time in Social Systems. American Journal of Sociology, 79(4), 841–870.
Simonsen, N. F., Oxholm, A. S., Kristensen, S. R., & Siciliani, L. (2020). What explains differences in waiting times for health care across socioeconomic status? Health Economics, 29(12), 1764–1785.
Eggers, W. D. (2021). 5 domains of government that are ripe for transformation. Governing. https://www.governing.com/next/5-domains-of-government-that-are-ripe-for-transformation.html