3 ms·
Not really. There is the notion of opportunity cost. 30' might be worth your time, unless investing that time, either working, or even resting, paid you back e.
by eftychis 9y ago
Not really. There is the notion of opportunity cost. 30' might be worth your time, unless investing that time, either working, or even resting, paid you back e.g. > $50. If you expect yourself to make less than $50 an hour (assuming you have to drive back (?), otherwise $100) then that would be a good deal. It depends on your model of course. After some point spending 30' to get $50 off is crazy, if you are struggling to make time for your family.
Either the article does a poor job describing the research, or I find it somewhat incomplete. I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. I am curious how that affects the valuation between different groups of individuals.
- Jedd 9y ago> I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. That's not how I read it -- the authors were not assigning a qualitative value to the items, only a quantitative one. They did not need to be the same 'type' of asset. It was just that when comparing the savings - 50/300 vs 50/1000 - some people considered the ratio more important than the numerator.
- Buge 9y agoYou are misunderstanding the article. The study asked some rich people "would you spend 30 minutes to save $50 on a $300 item". Some rich people said yes. Then they asked "would you spend 30 minutes to save $50 on a $1000 item". Some of the previous "yes" answers changed to "no". That is illogical, logically no one should have changed their answer. Poor people didn't make this illogical answer change.