&gt; That&#x27;s exactly what the GP was warning about: people will just go into a different &quot;meta-queue&quot; in which they vie for being the technically-&quot;last&quot; person to enter the real (LIFO) queue [1], with all the externalities that involves. People are still spending time waiting, they just have to do it in a more roundabout way. No free lunch (in money or time).<p>The ability of someone to &quot;cut in line&quot; by leaving and then coming back is obviously a critical failing of the system if doing that is cheaper than doing the thing you&#x27;re desired to do. But you can imagine rules to address it, like if you leave and come back then you get the same position in the stack as if you had never left. (And if this is being implemented in a computer then maybe you get a message on your phone once you&#x27;re at the top of the stack.)<p>&gt; So ... the entire counterintuitive result is just an artifact of how this method makes it more expensive (in time spent, assuming away the meta-queueing problem above) at peak times? But then it&#x27;s no different from the case for peak-hour pricing (or the opposite in the case of happy hours and early bird specials).<p>It doesn&#x27;t make it more expensive at peak times. The total cost is exactly the same, but it is imposed highly disproportionately, so that instead of 120 people each waiting 15 minutes, you have 105 people who are served immediately and 15 people who would each have to wait two hours. The theory being that at least some of those 15 people will then <i>give up and leave</i> because they can go do something productive with two hours when they couldn&#x27;t have with only 15 minutes.<p>You get essentially the same result by putting a small hard limit on the length of a queue and then banning anyone who showed up when the queue is full from entering the queue until it is completely empty.