We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
UX is the PM's job, and AI raises the stakes
Ravi Mehta's main example: at Tripadvisor, an icon-heavy redesign of the hotel-search filters cut conversion by 20%. He puts the potential cost of a full rollout at $100M . He rejects the idea that UX belongs only to designers. You can't take responsibility for a product's success while treating the experience as someone else's job. AI raises the stakes because teams can now bury users in "more screens, more choices, and more chat boxes" .
Three parts of his argument are practical:
- Chat is an option, not the default. A blank prompt can create translation work. Dragging an object or picking from a calendar is often easier. Hybrid designs pair language for stating what you want with familiar controls for refining the result, as in Magic Patterns and Lovable. When an agent is the user, a structured interface may be the more reliable choice .
- More automation isn't automatically better. Granola lets people take their own notes while it transcribes, then merges the two. For many customers, taking notes is part of how they think .
- How to find opportunities: watch someone do an important task and look for physical effort, cognitive burden, translation work and workarounds. Start with friction that is frequent, costly and close to the product's core value. Then count the checking and repair work a user does after the AI responds .
Building is cheap for everyone now
Hiten Shah points out that customers who used to wait six months for a feature can now build a rough version over a weekend and ask why your product can't do it. "The most threatening product feedback is going to arrive as working software" .
Sachin Rekhi, after two years of vibe coding, describes four distinct modes. For landing pages and feature prototypes he never looks at the code; prototypes work as a "modern-day Figma" for trying out different UX options. For personal apps he chooses simple, maintainable architecture. For production features at Notejoy he uses plan mode, mini-specs, explicit security and caching decisions, hundreds of unit tests and PR review. He says the last mode looks nothing like the others .
A widely discussed r/ProductManagement thread shows what happens without those guardrails. A PM said developers demand "ultra-granular" waterfall specs, skip estimates and unit tests, and leave the PM accountable for every failure . Out of desperation, the PM started building features with Claude. Third-party QA noticed better code quality, and the PM said the work finished in a tenth of the time. The PM doesn't want to be responsible for security or other things "beyond the UI" without engineering expertise .
A related post says recruiters now openly want "solution-oriented" PMs who reach features quickly . Commenters split on the cause. One says AI means PMs are expected to prototype on their own . Another says short runways make teams prefer something they can show investors over discovery .
Leadership and strategy
- Founder vs. steward. Scott Belsky argues that because models and whole layers of software are being displaced so quickly, companies whose roadmaps go from concept to execution in under a year need a founder mentality: the willingness to "churn strategy in short cycles" without fear of being wrong. He says steward leaders may suit hardware businesses with multi-year roadmaps .
- HubSpot re-founds. Brian Halligan is back as CEO. He and Dharmesh Shah say they are "completely re-founding" the company as "the Customer Harness Company" . Hiten Shah notes HubSpot is on track for $3.7B in revenue and compares the move to its original inbound playbook .
- Walmart agent profiles. CEO John Furner says Walmart will launch agent profiles in the coming weeks. Customers will be able to let their own agent or Walmart's buy for them, with limits such as a spending cap. He calls it "early in the journey" .
Talent signals
- Where UX researchers went. Lenny Rachitsky followed up on the decline in UX research roles. Of 2,779 US user researchers who changed jobs in 2024–25, 49% stayed in research, 17% moved to design, 9% left the field and about 2% became PMs. Almost half of those who stayed in research joined companies outside tech. Banks, financial firms and insurers hired about 1 in 7 .
- Hiring rules have side effects. Deb Liu argues that requiring CS degrees for PMs, which was meant to make PMs more technical, "cost us a generation of women PMs," since women earn only 1 in 5 CS degrees . That's worth keeping in mind as AI PM postings add technical requirements.
- Use the Hook Model early—before major engineering and design investment—as a product filter, or later to diagnose weak engagement. It is suited to businesses that depend on frequent repeat use; Eyal’s rule of thumb is at least weekly, and he advises against trying to build habits for infrequently used products.
- Prioritize engagement before buying growth: Eyal frames a business around growth, engagement, and monetization, and warns that spending on acquisition before establishing customer retention creates a “leaky bucket.” Engagement must be designed into the product rather than bought.
- Start product discovery with the user’s underlying emotional need, not with a technology seeking a problem. The Hook cycle is trigger, action, variable reward, and investment; for habit-forming products, investment should make the product more valuable with use. Eyal sees AI-enabled personalization as an opportunity and expects customers to increasingly want tailored digital experiences.
- Fitbod illustrates behavior-based targeting: rather than trying to turn non-exercisers into gym-goers, it serves people already at the gym who are unsure what workout to do; their logged sets and reps inform subsequent workouts.
- Eyal’s ethical test for behavioral design is whether the product materially improves users’ lives and whether its creator is a user; he says answering yes to both makes the creator a “facilitator.”
Job Search OS v2 packages job discovery into a workflow that creates a tailored application package, including a resume or work product, networking support, and interview preparation . Its autopilot fills applications in the user's browser; users supervise, are advised to humanize resumes, and send personalized connection notes themselves . The creator reports more than 2,000 monthly active users for Job Search OS and offers standalone access for $49 one-time with lifetime updates .
In response to a new PM asking what junior PM behaviors frustrate product leaders , commenters highlighted:
- Discovery: Don’t jump to a solution or anchor on a customer’s or leader’s first idea before understanding the problem. Listen to customers to understand their behavior and needs, and balance quantitative data with qualitative context.
- Stakeholder judgment: Avoid being an automatic “yes”; question requests with the “5 Why’s” rather than sending unsupported stakeholder opinions to engineering. One commenter warned that agreeing to every stakeholder creates a wish-list roadmap and frustrates engineering.
- Execution and trust: Know the product and domain well enough to answer basic questions, take ownership, and proactively update on promised ETAs; communicate mistakes clearly and build agency as trust grows. A commenter also cautioned against passing along AI-generated work without context or review.
Lenny’s 2026 tech-job-market report describes PMs as “winning in the AI era,” while engineering demand has stalled and design openings are at a record low.
Among 2,779 US user researchers who changed jobs in 2024–25, 49% took another research role, 17% moved into design, 9% left the field, and about 2% became PMs; nearly half of those who took another research job joined a company outside tech.
- PM hiring: Deborah Liu says requiring product managers to have computer science degrees to improve technical capability narrowed the eligible pool—women earned only 1 in 5 CS degrees—and changed the profession’s gender makeup, costing “a generation of women PMs.”
- Decision-making lesson: Requirements can create second-order effects as people adapt to rules and incentives; revisit the data and adjust rather than assuming a well-intentioned rule works as intended. The goal, Liu argues, should be better outcomes rather than perfect rules.
- Walmart said its AI can interpret plain-English shopping requests and context—such as tacos for four people with a gluten-free requirement—and connect them to products, inventory, and pricing, with the goal of enabling 25-minute fulfillment.
- Walmart said it planned to launch agent profiles in the coming weeks, allowing customers to delegate purchases to their own agent or Walmart’s while setting controls such as spending limits and purchase times; it described the work as an early-stage effort and emphasized keeping customers in control.
- Walmart’s associate-facing AI vision is to reduce friction by putting needed information and recommended next actions in workers’ hands; one forklift driver said a script he wrote for himself on a Walmart-provided platform saved time on each shift.
- For change in a large organization, Walmart described a mix of weekly feedback sessions with about 500 top US leaders and leadership-led alignment on major changes; it stressed providing context and understanding staff responsibilities and incentives.
Lenny Rachitsky’s 2026 tech-job-market report identifies product managers as “winning in the AI era”; it also says engineering demand has stalled, design openings are at a record low, and every role now requires AI skills.
- Gupta presents PM pay as employer-tiered: for PMs with 8–11 years’ experience, he gives Meta/Google total compensation (TC) of $400K–$550K, Tier 2 company median TC of $245K–$325K, and financial/payment technology company pay of $173K–$210K; he separately cites OpenAI and Anthropic AI PM postings at $293K–$490K in base pay. He advises building experience within product and then moving up company tiers rather than focusing only on titles, with market capitalization offered as a rough pay correlate.
- Gupta’s US PM leadership pay ranges, which he identifies as 25th–75th percentiles, are $288K–$485K for Group PM, $374K–$809K for Director, $739K–$1.31M for VP, and $2.86M–$7.86M for CPO. His progression framework shifts from Group PMs doing IC-like work while managing PMs, to directors setting standards for inherited teams and involving sales/marketing, VPs handling P&L trade-offs with the CFO/CEO, and CPOs owning product and business health, organizational changes, and board-level company trajectory. His advancement checklist is to learn strategy, expectations, org design and organizational politics, while avoiding down-level moves.
- Gupta says Job Search OS v2 adds an AI agent that uses a browser to find roles, tailor application materials, draft networking notes and fill applications, with the user supervising. He says users personalize and send connection notes themselves, while resumes may be sent without humanizing if users do not review them. He reports more than 2,000 monthly active users for Job Search OS and offers v2 for a one-time $49 purchase with lifetime updates.
SuperMe’s expert-search product for AI group chats aims to select five people from thousands of profiles for a question in about 2.5 seconds; it cautions that a prominent company logo on a resume does not necessarily indicate relevant expertise.
In workplace collaboration, people may respond to organizational contradictions in very different ways: questioning them, working around them, or prioritizing delivery can reflect different experiences and learned strategies, not necessarily their character or competence . Product teams should avoid assuming they know what drives a colleague’s behavior and turning those assumptions into judgments about their intentions or ability .
HubSpot is on track for $3.7B in revenue as Brian Halligan and Dharmesh Shah call it “Day 1,” saying they are “completely re-founding” the company as the “Customer Harness Company.” Hiten Shah connects the move to HubSpot’s earlier response to changing buying behavior with its inbound marketing playbook, and says the company now wants to create the next one.
- Product managers should own user experience rather than treat it as design’s job: product value depends on what customers can do with it, not only what it can do. At Tripadvisor, an icon-heavy hotel-filter redesign reduced conversion by 20%, representing a potential $100M revenue hit if rolled out.
- For AI products, choose interaction and automation to fit the task, not to showcase AI: chat can add translation work, familiar controls can help users inspect and refine results, and agents may need structured interfaces. More automation is not always better; Granola combines users’ own notes with a meeting transcript because note-taking can be part of how customers think.
- To find UX opportunities, observe people doing important tasks and look for physical effort, cognitive burden, translation work, and workarounds; prioritize frequent, costly friction near the product’s core value, test alternatives, and count review and repair work after AI responds.
For AI product work, Hiten Shah calls “Look at your data” the most useful advice and endorses evals, citing Evals for AI Engineers by Shreya and Hamel Husain.
A PM reports recruiters asking for “solution-oriented” candidates who reach features quickly rather than emphasizing problem definition; the post raises AI, funding scarcity, and competitor-copying as possible explanations, but does not establish a wider shift or its cause. One commenter interprets the demand as AI making it easier for PMs to build prototypes themselves, not as a call for unlimited feature growth. Another suggests short runways can push teams to favor work they can show investors next quarter over discovery.
Feature requests are shifting from descriptions to customer-built prototypes: customers who once waited six months can now build a rough version over a weekend and ask why the product lacks it, making working software a particularly challenging form of product feedback.
- Aide’s proposed workflow keeps Claude Code as the reasoning layer and uses MCP to access the screen and existing browser; simple commands run as skills without model tokens, while a short activity log links back to original context instead of copying everything. Visible execution pauses for approval before actions such as sending email or deploying changes, and projects retain their own tools, notes, and rules.
- The author describes Aide as a personal prototype used daily and says productizing it depends on whether enough people want it; they frame the intended value as speeding up research, specs, code, and repetitive workflows, not merely writing email replies. A commenter questioned the product’s Gmail-integration story because the post also describes manually copying emails into chat.
- A PM described developers requiring highly decomposed specs while engineering practices, estimates, and blocker communication were weak—and the PM was held accountable for delivery. The discussion highlights an engineering-process and accountability problem, not simply a need for more detailed requirements. A commenter recommended leaving estimates and delivery ownership with engineering, tracking commitments, and reporting missed deadlines rather than acting as the team’s TPM.
- Another commenter said improving a team without an engineering partner can take months or quarters; in their experience, a Scrum offsite helped build trust and surfaced organizational gaps.
- The post’s author reported using Claude to build features, with QA noting improved code quality and the author claiming they finished with better results in one-tenth the time; they were concerned about owning security and technical correctness without software engineering expertise.
A PM supporting roughly 17–18 developers argues that the role extends beyond managing the backlog and prioritizing incoming requirements: continuously identify product opportunities through user or operations friction, stakeholder and engineering conversations, usage patterns, and workflow improvements . The aim is meaningful product and business value, not simply keeping developers busy .
- The proposed coding-agent scope combines interactive CLI/IDE use with asynchronous sandbox workflows and multi-turn tool use; it targets codebases of 10–100 million lines without prebuilt indices and sessions that can be compacted, resumed, forked, replayed, and restored from checkpoints.
- Make permissions and user approval core safety requirements: the design rejects fully autonomous execution of dangerous commands and calls for policies at user, organization, or company level.
- Proposed enterprise requirements include keeping source code and embeddings client-side, zero data retention, a 1–2 second P90 time-to-first-token target, and four-nines availability.
- To control inference costs, route simple commands and local file/context operations locally, reserving inference for tasks that need language-model reasoning; more specific prompts can reduce costly model turns even when they are longer.
- For frequently changing codebases, the speakers favor agentic search over RAG: it avoids stale indexes and server-side embeddings and enables iterative correction, while accepting more round trips despite RAG’s lower per-query cost.
- Faster shipping does not necessarily mean fewer roadmaps: commenters argue it makes choosing the right work more important and call for careful planning, rigorous experimentation, and clearly defined and measured success. One recommends keeping experimentation, research/results, and company goals in shared context rather than siloed in individual PMs’ Claude accounts.
- The thread also contains opposing views: commenters predict agentic coding by non-PMs and agents’ broad connections could make roadmaps sprawl, while another argues that only one relevant strategic roadmap is needed.
Ten Lessons From the Law of Unintended Consequences

What do building elevators, child car seats, apartment buildings, and highway construction have in common? At first glance, it seems like nothing, but look deeper, and you will notice something interesting: well-meaning rules and regulations can produce second-order effects that come as a surprise.
A few months ago, I read Abundance: How We Build a Better Future (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and I started collecting examples of how simple, well-intentioned rules can lead to counterproductive or even perverse results. These unanticipated effects are sometimes overlooked, but they can hurt the very people the rules were meant to help in the first place.
There’s an old saying that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Of course, we want safer housing, a fairer society, and better places to live. These are universally worthy pursuits, but often when we think we have solved one problem, we have inadvertently created another. Economists call this the law of unintended consequences. Rules are not static; they have first- and second-order effects. The responses to these rules are sometimes unexpected because humans respond to incentives. We are living ecosystems of behavior, and our responses say a lot about how we should approach rulemaking in the future.
Collecting these examples was a reminder to remain humble and curious as we try to make changes. Rules are made, and then humans adapt. We need to be flexible enough to review the data again and adjust to the effects.
Housing: When Better Standards Make Housing Harder to Find
1. Elevators: Making Buildings Accessible Can Make Them Less Accessible
Intention: Ensure buildings are accessible to people with disabilities, older adults, and others who can’t walk up stairs.
Unintended consequence: Elevator requirements have become so costly that some smaller buildings skip elevators entirely, leaving them inaccessible to the people the rules were meant to serve.
I was recently in an older building in San Francisco and rode a cage elevator. If you haven’t seen one, it has no doors, just a metal grate across the entrance. It was small and bare-bones, but it worked. It got people from one floor to the next, which is the whole point.
That ride reminded me of a New York Times opinion piece, “The American Elevator Explains Why Housing Costs Have Skyrocketed,” (opens in new tab) in which Stephen Jacob Smith explains why elevators cost so much more in America than in Europe. A basic elevator costs about \$158,000 in New York City compared with \$36,000 in Switzerland.
Part of the gap comes from size requirements. Over time, rules have required elevators to be large enough for a wheelchair to turn around and, in many buildings, large enough for an emergency stretcher. Each requirement makes sense on its own, but together they make elevators bigger, pricier, and harder to fit into small buildings. On top of that, American elevator standards differ from those used in most of the world, so manufacturers can’t sell the same mass-produced models here, and installation is slow and expensive.
The result is a paradox. When an elevator adds well over \$100,000 to a project, builders of small apartment buildings often design around it by building fewer stories or leaving the elevator out. Rules meant to guarantee accessibility end up producing fewer accessible buildings. A small, simple elevator like the one I rode in San Francisco is far better than no elevator at all.
2. Emergency Exits: Making Buildings Safer Can Make Them Harder to Build
Intention: Protect residents during fires by ensuring multiple escape routes.
Unintended consequence: Requiring two staircases seems to make people in apartment buildings safer, but it can make buildings much less efficient or prohibitively expensive to build.
In most American cities, apartment buildings over three stories need two separate staircases to allow egress in a fire or emergency. However, this comes with a serious tradeoff. Two staircases, plus the hallway needed to connect them, take up substantial square footage and reduce usable space. In Europe, many countries allow apartment buildings to have a single staircase. A 2025 Pew study found that modern single-stair buildings up to six stories tall, with safety features like sprinklers, are as safe as those with two. (opens in new tab)
The renderings below show how a single-stair building with 20 units could fit on a typical single-family lot. Without a hallway dividing the building in half, the apartments can be larger, with more practical layouts.


With housing prices as high as they are, especially in cities, something as simple as a regulation change could reduce the cost of housing and increase housing capacity.
3. Minimum Parking Requirements: Making Parking Easier Can Make Housing More Expensive
Intention: Ensure residents have convenient places to park their cars and that overflow cars don’t disrupt neighborhoods.
Unintended consequence: Significant overbuilding of parking increases reliance on cars and consumes land that could be put to more productive use.
I remember listening to a (opens in new tab) Freakonomics (opens in new tab) episode (opens in new tab) featuring Donald Shoup, a UCLA professor and the author of (opens in new tab) The High Cost of Free Parking (opens in new tab), (opens in new tab) who argued that free parking is not free. Rather, it is a hidden cost for everyone.
“We pay for free parking in the prices of the goods we buy at places where the parking is free. And we pay for parking as residents when we get free parking with our housing. We pay for it as taxpayers. Increasingly, I think we’re paying for it in terms of the environmental harm that it causes. I did use data to estimate that parking subsidies in the United States are somewhere between 1 and 4 percent of the total GNP, which is about in the range of what we spend for Medicare or national defense.” (Source: Freakonomics, “Parking is Hell” (opens in new tab))
Many American cities require developers to build a minimum number of parking spaces for every apartment, even when residents don’t own cars or have access to public transportation.
A UCLA research review (opens in new tab) examined how mandatory parking can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of building new housing. In some cases, parking requirements can increase construction costs by more than 50%, and everyone pays, even those who don’t use it. A rule intended to make transportation more convenient can make housing less affordable, yet we ignore the tradeoffs.
4. Getting Rid of Slumlords: Making Housing Better Can Make It Less Affordable
Intention: Eliminate unsafe living conditions and ensure landlords maintain decent housing.
Unintended consequence: Raising minimum housing standards eliminates some of the lowest-cost rental options.
I first heard about this paradox while listening to the Freakonomics Radio (opens in new tab) episode “Why Are Cities (Still) So Expensive?” (opens in new tab) It asks why housing was relatively affordable in the 1960s and ’70s, and why prices suddenly jumped from the mid-1970s onward. Economist Jacob Vigdor found that this was true even in cities like Flint, where the population was declining during this period. If housing were only about supply and demand, why would prices increase while demand was falling?
It turns out that before the mid-’70s, housing was rented “as is,” meaning there was no minimum requirement for functioning heat, electricity, running water, and other basic necessities. Laws were passed requiring landlords to maintain and improve rental properties, and that cost was passed on to tenants. Before these laws, a quarter of housing was considered substandard.
Poor-quality housing is bad, but the second-order effect is unaffordable housing. These are difficult trade-offs. The paradox is that improving housing quality can reduce the availability of inexpensive housing. There is no magical world where housing can be both decent and affordable, at least under the current constraints.
5. Rent Control: Keeping Rents Down Can Make Apartments Harder to Find
Intention: Protect tenants from displacement caused by rapidly rising rents.
Unintended consequence: Rent control can reduce the supply of rental housing.
A 2019 study of San Francisco (opens in new tab) found that rent control helped existing tenants stay longer, but it also led landlords to remove units from the market by selling buildings or renovating them to push tenants out. So while current tenants benefit, everyone else in the market pays more in the future because supply is restricted and the cost of non-rent-controlled units rises.
A Georgetown study found that in New York City, rent stabilization benefited wealthier residents and hurt poorer ones (opens in new tab). “By freezing units in place and creating artificial scarcity, rent control ensures that those who are already housed – often wealthier and more politically connected – are the ones who benefit most, while newcomers and lower-income individuals are left out,” the study noted.
The researchers also found that landlords became more selective about renting to people with bad credit because of the rigid rental rules. The result was fewer affordable housing options in a city already struggling with high housing costs.
Employment: When Fairer Rules Change Who Gets Hired
6. The ADA: Protecting Workers With Disabilities May Affect Hiring
Intention: Prevent discrimination against workers with disabilities and ensure employers provide reasonable accommodations to keep people in the workforce.
Unintended consequence: Additional costs and legal obligations may discourage some employers from hiring people with disabilities.
A 2001 study by Daron Acemoglu and Joshua Angrist (opens in new tab) found that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) reduced employment among certain groups of people with disabilities. The reduction was concentrated at larger firms, since smaller firms were exempt from the rule, and the effect was largest in states with the strictest rules.
Protections for people with disabilities are admirable, but what if the secondary effect is that they protect those who are already employed while limiting the hiring of those who need accommodations?
I’ve seen a related dynamic in the technology industry.
In an earlier article, “What Happened to Women in Product?”, (opens in new tab) I explored how the introduction of technical degree requirements for product managers unintentionally changed the gender makeup of our profession. The goal was to hire more technically capable PMs, so a rule was set requiring computer science degrees. Since women earn only 1 in 5 CS degrees, the pool of eligible candidates changed overnight. This one seemingly reasonable desire for more technical chops among PMs cost us a generation of women PMs.
7. Ban the Box: Preventing Discrimination Can Encourage a Different Kind
Intention: Give people with criminal records a fairer chance of finding employment.
Unintended consequence: Employers who can’t ask about criminal history may rely on assumptions about applicants based on race.
“Ban the box” laws prevent employers from asking about criminal records early in the hiring process. The goal is to level the playing field for all candidates, including those with a criminal conviction. But since employers couldn’t get that information, they found another way. A field experiment published in (opens in new tab) The Quarterly Journal of Economics (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) found that the Black-white callback gap increased significantly among employers that removed criminal-history questions from their applications.
Researchers concluded that employers substituted racial stereotypes for criminal-history information. In other words, banning the box caused Black applicants both with and without criminal records to face discrimination, whereas before, only those with criminal records did.
A policy designed to eliminate one form of discrimination may inadvertently encourage another. There is no perfect answer, but unconscious bias is real. Taking information away causes people to use proxies for the information they seek, whether we like it or not.
Transportation and Safety: When Protection Changes Behavior
8. Highway Expansion: Reducing Traffic Can Create More Traffic
Intention: Reduce congestion by adding highway lanes.
Unintended consequence: More highway capacity encourages more people to drive, sometimes bringing congestion right back to where it started.
Imagine sitting in traffic every morning thinking, “If only the state would add another lane to the highway, we could all go faster.” But human nature being what it is, once traffic moves faster, people move farther away. Some trips that were once avoided because of how long they took are now taken.
An empirical observation called Marchetti’s Constant says that people settle into commuting about 30 minutes each way (opens in new tab). Making highways faster just leads people to live farther away, so a new lane simply fills up with more traffic. Economists call this induced demand.
A 2011 study published in the (opens in new tab) American Economic Review (opens in new tab) (opens in new tab) found that vehicle travel in American cities increased roughly in proportion to interstate highway capacity. Building more begets more traffic, more traffic encourages more building, and so on.
9. Bicycle Helmet Laws: Making Cycling Safer May Encourage Riskier Driving
Intention: Protect cyclists from serious head injuries.
Unintended consequence: Mandatory helmet requirements may discourage people from cycling, and wearing a helmet may also change how drivers behave around cyclists.
Helmets clearly help protect people in accidents, and I required all of my kids (who biked to school) to wear them religiously. Mandating them certainly makes cycling less convenient, but that is perhaps a worthwhile tradeoff.
But there is another, more surprising effect. What if wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around cyclists?
In a 2007 study in Accident Analysis & Prevention (opens in new tab), psychologist Ian Walker of the University of Bath equipped his bicycle with sensors to measure how closely cars passed him. Across 2,355 overtaking events, he found that drivers passed an average of 8.5 centimeters closer when he wore a helmet than when he didn’t. Perhaps drivers believe that cyclists wearing helmets are safer or more experienced. Later researchers have challenged his findings, noting that it is unclear whether closer passing actually leads to more accidents, since the study measured only passing distance.
Still, the question is fascinating. People may take greater risks when they believe someone else is better protected from the consequences. We want everyone who bikes to wear a helmet, but we don’t account for the effect on the psychology of the drivers around them.
10. Car Seat Laws: Protecting Children Can Make Families Smaller
Intention: Prevent children from being injured or killed in automobile accidents.
Unintended consequence: Car seat requirements reduce the number of families with a third child.
I owned a Toyota Corolla for many years, and I strapped my kids into car seats in the back. My husband had wanted a minivan for years, so the minute our son (our oldest) was born, he started looking at them. I was perfectly content with my Corolla. Then we had Danielle (our third), and the only vehicle that could fit three kids in car seats was a minivan, which I hated driving.
Many families are like ours. Having a third child necessitates buying a new car, which increases both the immediate and long-term expenses for the family.
Researchers Jordan Nickerson and David Solomon published a 2024 paper titled “Car Seats as Contraception.” (opens in new tab) They estimated that car seat mandates reduced the annual probability of having a third child by 0.73 percentage points among women whose two children were still young enough to require car seats. In other words, car seat laws lowered the number of births each year by a small amount. Car seats are not bad, but this is not something legislators considered when setting these rules.
“We estimate that these laws prevented fatalities of 57 children in car crashes in 2017 but reduced total births by 8,000 that year and have decreased the total by 145,000 since 1980.” Car seats are good things, for sure, but they do influence family planning decisions. Who knew?
From Unintended Consequences to an Agenda of Abundance
These examples are worth thinking about as we make rules for our workplaces and communities. Well-meaning rules can cause ripple effects if we are not careful. Simple rules that seem innocuous and pro-social can end up hurting the very people we are trying to protect.
This is the central argument of Abundance (opens in new tab). (opens in new tab) Klein and Thompson argue that our country has developed policies to protect against harms, but those policies also create costs that are borne by everyone.
We can pass laws to protect tenants from substandard housing, evictions, and large rent increases, but those same protections help explain why housing prices are astronomical and growing much faster than inflation. Those who are protected are safe, but what about those who can’t secure housing at all?
The examples I’ve listed here are ways to look deeper at the problem. We want good things, but we often don’t anticipate the unintended consequences. All of these rules are well-intentioned, but they also carry real costs.
The goal shouldn’t be perfect rules. It should be better outcomes.
Sometimes the most important thing we can do is recognize that trying to eliminate every possible downside can prevent us from achieving the larger good.
Because in our pursuit of the perfect, we can lose sight of the good.
- PM hiring: Deborah Liu says requiring product managers to have computer science degrees to improve technical capability narrowed the eligible pool—women earned only 1 in 5 CS degrees—and changed the profession’s gender makeup, costing “a generation of women PMs.”
- Decision-making lesson: Requirements can create second-order effects as people adapt to rules and incentives; revisit the data and adjust rather than assuming a well-intentioned rule works as intended. The goal, Liu argues, should be better outcomes rather than perfect rules.