3 ms·
2) Buy the most inexpensive house you can tolerate. That doesn't follow. Depending on how much utility you derive from quality of house, the opposite could be
by ummonk 8y ago
2) Buy the most inexpensive house you can tolerate.
That doesn't follow. Depending on how much utility you derive from quality of house, the opposite could be an optimal move - buy the best house that you can afford.
- natalyarostova 8y agoA strict reading of his statement finds it congruent with yours, since you control the toleration parameter.
- StavrosK 8y agoNot really, I might be able to tolerate a hovel but derive tons of utility from a mansion, making it worth the money.
- mlboss 8y agoCan you elaborate more on the utility of a mansion ? There was some research that people spend most of their time in only 3 rooms: bedroom, kitchen and bathroom.
- StavrosK 8y agoThey're great for analogies, for one.
- ummonk 8y agoMost people are either inactive or extroverts who prefer to go out for their activities. As an active introvert, I’d rather bring a lot of my activities in-house / on-premises. Personally I wouldn’t find utility in an actual mansion but I’d certainly prefer something more than a 1 bedroom. With kids that means at least one extra bedroom if not multiple. The activities I do would mean I’d derive value from a garage (for projects), a home gym (for indoor activities), and a yard (for outdoor activities). Game room / home theater would be nice too. That isnt a particularly large house but it will be rather pricey in an expensive metro like the Bay Area.
- mikorym 8y agoMathematician spotted.
- ummonk 8y agoThat would require that the toleration parameter be a function of income, which doesn’t seem right.