19 ms·

Everything must be paid for twice

406 points by imartin2k 5y ago

oars 5y ago
Interesting read. Looking around my house I too resonate with the author.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
We should also start to recognize the third price that must be paid, but is even more overlooked, the cost to dispose of something when we are done. For many years we have just been chucking stuff in the bin and trying to forget about it, but for most things that not sustainable.
- mwint 5y ago
  I assume we’re talking about eventually running out of resources to make $thing, not running out of places to put old $things? Because I just drove through Nevada and can personally attest that we are not in danger of running out of places to dig big holes to put old stuff in.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    Reminds me of George Carlin's classic "Stuff" routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac
  - labster 5y ago
    Assuming this is true, you still need to pay for machines to dig the big holes, transportation to those big holes, infrastructure for transporting to those to those big desert holes.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      That’s probably still less total effort than what’s embodied in the device as part of its making. Mining and refining bauxite or iron ore, mining and refining fossil fuels, doing all the processing and transporting to get it to you in good condition is likely to dominate the cost to throw it into a regionally compacted bundle to trundle it off across half a continent (but not the world’s largest ocean) for disposal.
  - quickthrower2 5y ago
    Or pollution in producing the thing. Particularly greenhouse gases.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    So how did we end up with places like Fresh Kills in New York? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill
    - mwint 5y ago
      I didn’t claim landfills don’t exist, nor that there is unlimited room in populated areas. I claim that there is essentially unlimited room if you’re willing to travel a few hundred miles, at least in the states. Trucking trash is pretty cheap - think about how cheap it is to transport retail goods across the country. Now think about the cost savings from not caring about the condition of the “product” on arrival. And anyway, it’s gotta be cheaper than sending waste to China, like we used to do.
- chana_masala 5y ago
  I thought actually that this was going to be the second price from the article. What's so disappointing to me is how many companies get to treat the earth as a free or nearly resource to turn into profit.
  - exclipy 5y ago
    It's free in the same way that stealing is a way to get things for free. When you pay for petrol for example, the money you pay goes to the oil extractors, refiners, distributors, etc. for the transfer of oil from the ground to your car. But you're not paying the earth for the taking of those resources (carbon budget I can be considered a "resource"). It's analogous to paying for someone to steal for you. In an efficient market, the price you pay would include a carbon tax paid to the "Earth fund", and the fund would be used to replenish the planet's resources (eg. by carbon capture and storage). But until then, the version of capitalism we operate is one where the largest participant (planet Earth) is only being stolen from; never being paid.
    - chana_masala 5y ago
      Thank you, that's my sentiment precisely and thoroughly stated.
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      That's pretty much what carbon credits are. We have them, they just need to be expanded and developed. And ideally not subverted and transformed into just another tax. The current system, as far as I understand it, is a market. One of the better ideas I've seen governments implement. You can purchase carbon credits only to the extent other carbon credits are on the market - like people planting trees.
    - jtbayly 5y ago
      So do you think all the people breathing air right now are stealing it unless they first ask Mother Earth whether they may have it? What should the payment be?
neltnerb 5y ago
And here I was hoping for something non-vacuous, like that you should have to pay a price when you buy something and when you dispose of it. Is it insightful now that buying stuff you won't use is a waste of money? This is why you should always have a cooldown period before buying anything, to help avoid letting marketing influence you as heavily versus your actual needs.
erikerikson 5y ago
There are other dimensions of cost. Storage space consumption and the payment for rights to the space, for example. Complexity of inventory management for a second. Eventually you pay the time and attention, it not also monetary, cost of disposal.
MathMonkeyMan 5y ago
This sounds like semantics. If I buy a flute, I get a carefully configured bundle of metal, cork, and leather pads. I didn't pay for the skill. Likewise, when I buy a novel, I didn't pay for the knowledge. It's not a second cost, it's two purchases.
_bfhp 5y ago
> we reflexively overindulge in entertainment and other low-second-price pleasures –- phone apps, streaming services, and processed food — even though their rewards are often only marginally better than doing nothing. But without religion or other compelling organizations or meaningful jobs, it's the most natural way for people feel a part of an experience together. There is a significant return on investment: you get to compare opinions with your family about the latest Marvel movie, or chat with your friends about the newest Taco Bell offering. Otherwise what can you talk about? The problem isn't the presence of a "consumer society" but the absence of meaning.
jay_kyburz 5y ago
This is why I prefer open source software over commercial offerings. I spent years developing expertise in 3d Studio Max and Photoshop, (the second price) but from time to time have found myself in situations where I couldn't use them. These days I prefer Blender and Krita where they are almost always available. (And Linux vs Windows or Mac OS, and Kdenlive vs Premier, and the list goes on.) I consider taking the time to learn these apps an investment.
- dhbradshaw 5y ago
  I do the same -- that is what moved me from Matlab to Python and Windows to Linux about 15 years ago. I had no idea at the time what a blessing that move was going to be, but the principle of maximizing future freedom led me in the right direction.
- Kye 5y ago
  I think music makers get lucky. Most of our software has reasonable copy protection. I've never had problems activating or opening something from Ableton or Native Instruments. Some people have trouble, but it's nothing like the horror stories I've heard out of other creative fields. My theory is the people at the top are mostly people who actually use the software or have at least had bad experiences with copy protection and don't want to contribute to the problem.
  - MisterSandman 5y ago
    I don't think that's necessarily correct. Music production software isn't as dystopian partially because of the absolute market dominance of Logic Pro - anything else can't compete with it, so the last thing those companies want is more reasons for their customers to not use them. The other reason is people making money - the vast, vast majority of people will never make money from music production or guitar plugins (not because it is inherently worse, but because a lot more people do it for fun, v/s photo or video editing). Photoshop and Premier know that a substantial amount of customers use their products to make a living. OTOH, what you're saying is definitely true to some extent for Guitar Plugins et al. Native Instruments has a bunch of free guitar plugins, and Tonebridge is amazing, and neither have any reason to be free.
nicklaf 5y ago
Hah, I was expecting the "second price" to be some sort of rent or bribe that had to be paid to use something that was independently procured or invented. Like planning something innovative but not having the right social capital in your org to get it approved, or inventing something but not being allowed to use it without first buying the patent rights to related inventions.
- erosenbe0 5y ago
  Well advocates of an optimal systems of patents (not what we have) would say the returns to society as a result of granting exclusivity are far greater than the cost. So there wouldn't be an amortized net cost to society.
cortesoft 5y ago
This makes sense for some things, but the examples the author uses don't make sense to me. Take the Moby Dick example... the author says you don't get the return on it until you have paid the 16 hour price of reading it... but isn't those sixteen hours the actual reward? You don't read a book to be finished with it, you read it because you like the reading process. The reward starts the first minute you start reading the book. Not only that, but you don't have to finish the book to get something out of reading it. If you enjoyed the time you spent reading, that is enough. This attitude seems very "completionist", where you only get value after you finish something. That isn't how I view things. Also, why does he think mindless apps and games are the same as doing nothing? The idea is you enjoy the time spent playing the game. Sure, you don't end up with anything after, but you enjoyed the time.
- cafard 5y ago
  Sixteen hours to read Moby Dick? That recalls the old Woody Allen joke about speed-reading: "I read War and Peace in two hours. It's about Russia."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - yepthatsreality 5y ago
    This quote lead me down this rabbit hole: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/08/speed-reading/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/08/speed-reading/
  - popcube 5y ago
    this is how nomal people read book, maybe it is not best, but still most common way to contact literature
    - barbazoo 5y ago
      What are "normal people"?
leetrout 5y ago
I am the worst for not taking care if things I own. I've noticed an increased sense of joy and satisfaction by when I, for example, wash and wax my car. Instead of just using it when I need to go somewhere spending time taking care of it reminds me i own it, that it was a large purchase and keeping clean and in proper working order is beneficial and I should be proud. It has definitely helped me be less materialistic this past year and really appreciate the things I have purchased.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  By optimizing for initial purchase price, I often find that I don't take care of my stuff because it was never that good to begin with. When I had a car I loved, I took way better care of it than other vehicles simply because I found it to be a joy to drive. Alas, good care doesn't protect against hit & run accidents. We had a good eight years together. IMO, people often don't bother to care for their belongings because their belongings just aren't worthwhile or deprecate too rapidly: you bought that PC last week? Throw it out, it's an antique.
  - leetrout 5y ago
    I think it is a legitimate problem here in the US. So much waste. No more repair.
    - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
      IMO, it seems that the problem became a self-reenforcing cycle when the middle classes learned that they could optimize on price on nonessentials in order to free up money for the things they truly cared about. That caused markets to bifurcate into cheap garbage that, in a just world, would not be worthwhile at any price and luxury products priced for the wealthy. Mid-price mid-quality repairable goods mostly no longer exist.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  That's a little bit like the Ikea effect where people who assemble their furntiure themselves value it more than people who don't. This also leads onto another problem which is a lot of things you own demand attention and money throughout their life. Cars are the obvious example which demand new tyres, servicing, fuel, cleaning, their own house to be stored in, etc. Even the bookshelf that Moby Dick sits on will need dusting from time to time.
jasperry 5y ago
"Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them." --Schopenhauer
strulovich 5y ago
The author seems to have mostly stumbled upon the old “time is money” adage. People today have much more money (or purchasing power) than pre industrial people. They have the same amount of time. There’s a big consequence to your behaviors whether you have more time, or more money. When you have more time, you backpack, take long buses and sleep in hostels. When you have more money than time you fly, use guided tours to do things quickly etc (all within your preferences of course) The author then goes through the problem with what another comment described as “completionist attitude”. That’s not necessarily a good way to live your life I reckon.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
crims0n 5y ago
This idea really resonates with me. I started out life pretty poor, and am fortunate enough now to be able to purchase most anything I want. What I no longer have however, is time. I found myself purchasing things I want to have time for, but in all reality don't. Thinking about the second cost before hitting that buy button may be a good way for me to stop cluttering my life up with stuff I don't need, and the associated stress of knowing it's sitting there waiting to eat up time I don't have.
- jspaetzel 5y ago
  Now that you can afford to, why not buy some time for yourself instead of stuff?
  - srik 5y ago
    Youth is wasted on the old.
  - hahajk 5y ago
    Maids and cloth-folding services are great, but a lot of people who have a whole lot of money but no time are working 60-80 hours a week (many work even more of course.) But you’re giving up more than money if you quit and take a 40 hour a week job. Jobs with fewer weekly hours often aren’t as glamorous and probably don’t have that feeling of “velocity”. Trying to take less than 40 hours a week and you’re probably not going to be a first class member of the company. If Bob takes off every Friday, how can he manage his full time team? And if a company tries to employ people at 30 hours a week as policy, how can they possibly compete?
    - bruce511 5y ago
      When you're in a culture it's hard to spot the things that are not "normal". From an external point of view working 60-80 hours a week is not "normal"[1] It's a very US centric thing. In, dare I say, most countries a 40 hour week (or less in places) is normal and working past that is not expected, and often frowned upon.[2] If you are in the SV rat race, where you do 80 hours a week, then you can't imagine a world where people do less than that. But (spoiler alert) it works out just fine. On the other hand if you have successfully indoctrinated employees to work for you for 100 hours a week growing your business for you, selling you their lives for nothing more than money, then by all means get rich off their sweat. [1] I'm referring to regular salary work here, not minimum wage service jobs. [2] there are also countries, often the same ones, that _require_ you to take 4 weeks of paid vacation every year.
iliketrains 5y ago
Interesting read. I'd argue that there is also a third price -- the price of getting rid of it. While throwing something in a garbage may be "cheap", there are many hidden costs, especially for the society as a whole. I have definitely started to consider "price of disposal" when purchasing new tings.
- Xeoncross 5y ago
  Well, even if you are totally oblivious to the cost to the environment (we all are at times) - there are real, immediate costs to getting read of many items. Ask anyone how many hours they took to sell a car, house, or their art work and you can see 'ending' costs add up quickly - other items often have disposal costs like appliances and tires.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    I think most of those costs for a house, car, or piece or art are only present because of an attempt to recover some of the first cost. If you just want to be rid of those things, the third cost can be quite low.
  - vl 5y ago
    Only if you want to sell above market price, sell slightly below, and it’s gone in minutes/hours. Underprice car by 5% and put on FB marketplace, you’ll get first offer in 10 minutes and 20 offers in an hour.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- dhbradshaw 5y ago
  I learned this the hard way when trying to create iron nanoparticles. I found a great deal on a fair amount of iron pentacarbonyl while I was working at LANL. It was a few dollars to buy. Later I learned that it would cost thousands of dollars to dispose of!
  - tdeck 5y ago
amelius 5y ago
Yes, I paid for my music, but then the Audio Home Recording Act made sure I paid an additional piracy tax on my harddrives too.
edlinfan 5y ago
https://archive.is/mrpNt https://archive.is/mrpNt
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
DarylZero 5y ago
> With all the wonderful toys on offer, almost nobody feels like they have quite enough money, enough acquisition power I don't have anywhere near enough money (I'm literally under the poverty line) but I definitely feel like I have enough "acquisition power." I don't want to acquire more, I want to sort through all my junk and get rid of most of it.
- mod 5y ago
  Figuring out how much is "enough" has been incredibly valuable to me. It turns out I'm already quite wealthy in the categories that are important to me. I, too, am trying to get rid of a lot of things. Not to be a minimalist or anything, but to quit feeling like I owe time to those objects and the spaces they occupy, and instead focus even more time into the things I care more about.
gnicholas 5y ago
I sort of understand the example about the book, but what about a video game? Certainly playing a video game doesn't count as 'paying for it' again. But in that light, the book example doesn't really make sense, at least for books that are enjoyable to read. Some books you read to get the nuggets of knowledge, perhaps for business purposes. But many books are actually enjoyable to read, at least ostensibly!
pthread_t 5y ago
Is the page down now?
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  https://archive.is/mrpNt https://archive.is/mrpNt
akeck 5y ago
In my experience, I eventually pay for everything three times. Once to get, once to use (to get the return), and once to dispose. I'm continually surprised at the time cost of the last one.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
tchock23 5y ago
Liked the article, but did anyone else find it odd they’re asking you to do a ‘Depth Year’ in a… Facebook group? The concept sounds appealing, but a Facebook group is one of the last places I would associate with finding ‘depth’ (Slack or Discord being a close second and third).
- BlueTemplar 5y ago
  Yeah, the irony...
antisthenes 5y ago
From my perspective with a bit of economic background, the author is attempting to describe opportunity cost in the most roundabout and counterintuitive way possible. Personally, I think reading the standard definition first would be much more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
- kebman 5y ago
  I honestly think the author made a pretty bad point. Time isn't money. Instead money is a construct that is very useful for the exchange of goods. Sure, part of the argument for a price is time, but the agreed upon price is not an expression of time alone, but mostly supply and demand. That's why you are more handsomely awarded for making things that are actually in demand, and thus valuable for the other party. But sure you can measure just about anything as a "cost" if you like. Personally I find a lot of work quite enjoyable, though. So is it then a "cost" for me to endure it?
manmal 5y ago
There‘s this scene in the movie „Walk the Line“ (about Johnny Cash“ where John fails to correctly operate a tractor that he bought (first price) alongside with the estate he was now living on. He hadn’t spent the second price to get familiar with his estate and the tractor, which resulted with him ending up in the river, falling off the tractor. His inability of paying the second price is what gets him almost killed, and is the reason his family rallies behind him to help him get his life in order. I could never put the concept from the scene in words, but first and second price describes this problem perfectly.
throwawayarnty 5y ago
This second price is obvious for anyone who has downloaded a Gb worth of classic eBooks and realised their life is not long enough to read through them all.
Nevermark 5y ago
First price: aquisition Second price: utilization Third price: room, board and feeding The third price is the total cost required to own something, independent of any utilization. Think rent on storage units filled with unused and forgotten items. Or simply the clutter and lost useful space in a room due to the simple presence of an object. The third price is often the worst.
- Too 5y ago
  Oh yes. Don’t under estimate how upkeep on small items can quickly escalate to require even more stuff. Book needs new bookshelf, bookshelf needs bigger room, room need bigger house, house need lawn, lawn need lawn mower, lawn mower need garage, garage need paint job, and so on. Think about all the items you own and if you really use them or if they are there “just in case” or to support some other useless single purpose item. Not saying you shouldn’t buy the things you enjoy and your garage might be a joy for other reasons. Just be mindful that once you reach the limit of one space, practicing one-in one-out is a very good idea. People renting storage units (not temporarily) are frankly just sad. How are you ever going to use something if it’s stowed away so deep.
_Adam 5y ago
This is an interesting perspective but it only applies in cases where the use case doesn't already exist. For example, shoes are exempt. Another example I like is wood working tools. I need to cut wood in a certain way; buying a miter saw (while requiring a bit of setup and on boarding) has a net negative "second price" given I'm already committed to replacing every baseboard in my house. But I like the author's perspective, so I agree that we should at least consider the second price and prioritize purchase of items for which it is negative.
- Shank 5y ago
  Shoes aren't exempt though. You're just paying the price as soon as you start wearing them. If you have only one pair of shoes, that's every day. But there are a lot of people with more than one pair of shoe, for different occasions, and many unworn pairs of shoes around.
winkeyless 5y ago
What I found helpful is: Think ahead. What if I could afford it? What does acquiring this actually mean to me? Will it make me happier (however you define it). Be careful what you wished for.
kebman 5y ago
So time is money... Except it isn't. Instead money is a construct that is very useful for the effective exchange of goods, and not a measure of time. In fact it is just a saying, because wage slaves usually don't see much variance in how they're awarded for their time. As such money is instead an expression of supply and demand. The time spent on making some good is merely an argument for some minimum pay, but if the thing you made is worthless to the other party, then there is no guarantee that you'll be rewarded for the effort you made over time. If all else is equal, then sure, you can save money by working faster. But there are a lot of ways to work around working faster, such as working smarter or making time into your friend, say by buying something that compounds over time. Time, on the other hand, is a constant. Whether you "make use" of the time or not is irrelevant. Add to this that about eight hours a day is "wasted" to sleep! You only ever have a rough measuring stick as for how long you'll live, and beyond that point, time stops bearing any meaning what so ever for you, because you're dead. That is quite important, because you can't experience time when you're dead. And so, from your perspective, time stops existing until your next experience, however long that may take. Now what does that tell you? Well, for one, it should probably tell you that time isn't nearly as valuable as folks make it out to be, though what you make out of this life is of course pretty important. And so you might value other things more than the hustle and bustle of making something faster or on time. Instead perhaps enjoy life more.
bitcoinboy11 5y ago
See s
jakey_bakey 5y ago
Feels like a lament on Steam sales, the most extreme example of only paying the first price.
Bendy 5y ago
I’ve not managed to read the article since its site’s choked. However I wonder if like some of the comments here it touches on something that has only become more stark with increasing automation and mass surveillance. That labor tends to consumption and vice versa. These two otherwise orthonormal concepts collapse into each other in a manner perhaps related to the swings between pleasure and jouissance.
slategruen 5y ago
After about a year of online shopping spree heavily induced by lockdowns, I decided to record and analyze all the purchases I made online and not surprisingly, a lot of those are either left unused or broken. This made me realize how a lot of purchases I do are really just because of impulse. Now, I try to be more conscious about what I buy through simple accounting. I always record everything I order with my ledger. Together with that, I also have a list of the items I currently own with an indication how much I paid for it initially and how long have I been using them. Regular tracking really helps to make sense of your financial decisions.
- jakub_g 5y ago
  By default I don't buy things on Amazon, but just add it to the cart, and keep in cart for weeks. I sometimes go over the cart. If there's something I truly need, it would come up often enough in mind that the next time I check cart it will make me click 'buy'.
raman162 5y ago
This article reminds me of a book I'm reading now, "Four thousand weeks: time management for mortals"[1]. One of the repeated themes is that every choice you make to do something, you are choosing not to do any number of things at that given time. Obvious when hearing it, but it's really made me ponder about how I choose to spend my time. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54785515-four-thousand-weeks https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54785515-four-thousan...
- mckirk 5y ago
  Great to see this on here! Since I've started listening to it, I go around recommending the book to basically everyone. The truths in there are so simple in theory, but it's still eye opening to be confronted with them.
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    I really like some of the viewpoints and perspectives, but I found the material pretty thin and not worthy of an entire book. It's a dozen short blog entries stretched into several hundred pages of text. I recommend it as "skim in a few sittings" vs. read.
    - raman162 5y ago
      I think this happens with most self-help books. Most of the time it's just lecturing about a single point for a number of pages that can be summed up into a paragraph or even a sentence at times. Personally for me, the value of the long form style is that it allows the author's message to brew slowly in my head.
MatekCopatek 5y ago
It's funny how the author frames this post in a very economic way. Personally, I would never describe reading a book as something where I'm investing and/or extracting value. It's extra ironic that the entire issue they're describing is caused exactly by such (IMHO) over-economic thinking.
- boomlinde 5y ago
  Are you trying to tell me that some random self-help dude shower thought isn't making you get better at being human?
- stdbrouw 5y ago
  Framing it as paying a price to be paid might be a bit awkward, but surely the idea that we often make aspirational purchases without thinking through what it will take to actually get any enjoyment out of those items afterwards, resonates with many and has little to do with ultra-utilitarian thinking?
- jiggawatts 5y ago
  I do! A long time ago I started computing entertainment in terms of quality hours per dollar. So for example a good book might cost $20 but last ten hours of high quality entertainment, which is very good value at $2 per hour. Movie tickets are not-so-good at something like $20 per hour, $40+ if I have a date and we're buying snacks. Some computer games are ludicrously efficient. I never paid a cent for some games and played them for thousands of hours. Even factoring in the cost of the PC and electricity, we're looking at cents per hour. Holidays are the worst, at something like $1K+ per day or $60 per waking hour. I had to explain to the missus that we're wasting money going to a so-so restaurant on an overseas holiday. Since we've already sunk thousands into just being present at that location, and every hour was costing us Real Money, we may as well go to restaurant that's just shy of 5 stars and costs triple digits. Do the sky dive. Then do a dive under the ocean. Snowboard. See something spectacular! Otherwise, what's the point? We're burning money for what... doing nothing... but in a different part of the planet!?
  - jll29 5y ago
sleightofmind 5y ago
Useful insight. Just what I needed. Thanks!
hrdwdmrbl 5y ago
Another cost is what i call “maintenance cost”. The thinking about, cleaning, repairing, recharging, moving, etc. Even a pencil. I must store it, remember where it is, take it out, clean under it, sharpen it, move it out of the way to get another thing, and finally discard it. These costs compound with each new acquisition.
Puts 5y ago
I actually tend to see anything I buy as a black hole that will suck more money into it. A good example is when you get a bicycle, you do the equation and realize that within two years you will have saved in on the cost of public transportation. But it's when you start using it you realize that suddenly you always end up sweaty arriving to work so you need to buy good ventilated outdoor clothes and then a little bit later the winter arrives and you realize you need the same type of winter clothes, and then your first tier brakes and you realize you don't have any tools, so not only do you need to buy a new tier but also the tools. And here the initial smart calculation has fallen apart long time ago. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of benefits riding a bike to work so it may still be very much worth it. But once you have this realization you can apply the same logic to anything you buy or thinking of buying which may helps prioritizing because there's just so many black holes you can have in your life.
- i5heu 5y ago
  I think you mean Opportunity cost? > In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a particular activity option is the loss of value or benefit that would be incurred (the cost) by engaging in that activity, relative to engaging in an alternative activity offering a higher return in value or benefit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost?wprov=sfti1
  - jasode 5y ago
    >I think you mean Opportunity cost? No, I'd say the gp is talking more about "hidden TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership). Opportunity Cost is about finite time which forces the choice of one action to come at the expense of other alternative actions. Hidden TCO is being ignorant of auxiliary costs of the base products (accessories, maintenance, etc.) An extreme example of that is a "free puppy" can become one of the most expensive items to own especially when you're uneducated about the true TCO of dogs. I.e. In addition to obvious vet bills, going on a vacation now means you have to pay for a dog sitter which you didn't initially account for. Owning recreational boats is another example of hidden TCO.
- maximus-decimus 5y ago
ruaraidh 5y ago
SergeAx 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20220123073501/https://www.raptitude.com/2022/01/everything-must-be-paid-for-twice/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220123073501/https://www.rapti...
ConfusedDog 5y ago
I definitely has a consumer addiction on buying used books, discounted games, new electronics, etc. This article is enlightening to me as it helps me to analyze my behavior. I really should only buy an item like books when the Value is > than the Cost. What it looks like right now (using used book as example): Cost = the amount of money I bought the book Value = the rush feeling that I have about being a reader/phantom feeling of being a little better But actually: Cost = the amount of money I bought the book + keeping/transporting the book + not reading it + fueling to my addictive behavior spiral Value = none, maybe when I sell the damn thing with a profit - the time and effort = negative value Overall, the value is far less than the cost. This article value is ++ for me.
shove 5y ago
* cries in arcade bar owner *
dusted 5y ago
I've tried to access this since this morning without luck, the plain text google cached version works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dLyPRvNlrcoJ:https://www.raptitude.com/2022/01/everything-must-be-paid-for-twice/&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dLyPRvN...
uslic001 5y ago
Site is down.
durmonski 5y ago
Great article. I often think about this. We usually only pay the first price without realising that there is extra thing (price) that needs paying.

406 points by imartin2k 5y ago

oars 5y ago

Interesting read. Looking around my house I too resonate with the author.

We should also start to recognize the third price that must be paid, but is even more overlooked, the cost to dispose of something when we are done. For many years we have just been chucking stuff in the bin and trying to forget about it, but for most things that not sustainable.

mwint 5y ago
I assume we’re talking about eventually running out of resources to make $thing, not running out of places to put old $things? Because I just drove through Nevada and can personally attest that we are not in danger of running out of places to dig big holes to put old stuff in.
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  Reminds me of George Carlin's classic "Stuff" routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvgN5gCuLac
- labster 5y ago
  Assuming this is true, you still need to pay for machines to dig the big holes, transportation to those big holes, infrastructure for transporting to those to those big desert holes.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That’s probably still less total effort than what’s embodied in the device as part of its making. Mining and refining bauxite or iron ore, mining and refining fossil fuels, doing all the processing and transporting to get it to you in good condition is likely to dominate the cost to throw it into a regionally compacted bundle to trundle it off across half a continent (but not the world’s largest ocean) for disposal.
- quickthrower2 5y ago
  Or pollution in producing the thing. Particularly greenhouse gases.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  So how did we end up with places like Fresh Kills in New York? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill
  - mwint 5y ago
    I didn’t claim landfills don’t exist, nor that there is unlimited room in populated areas. I claim that there is essentially unlimited room if you’re willing to travel a few hundred miles, at least in the states. Trucking trash is pretty cheap - think about how cheap it is to transport retail goods across the country. Now think about the cost savings from not caring about the condition of the “product” on arrival. And anyway, it’s gotta be cheaper than sending waste to China, like we used to do.
chana_masala 5y ago
I thought actually that this was going to be the second price from the article. What's so disappointing to me is how many companies get to treat the earth as a free or nearly resource to turn into profit.
- exclipy 5y ago
  It's free in the same way that stealing is a way to get things for free. When you pay for petrol for example, the money you pay goes to the oil extractors, refiners, distributors, etc. for the transfer of oil from the ground to your car. But you're not paying the earth for the taking of those resources (carbon budget I can be considered a "resource"). It's analogous to paying for someone to steal for you. In an efficient market, the price you pay would include a carbon tax paid to the "Earth fund", and the fund would be used to replenish the planet's resources (eg. by carbon capture and storage). But until then, the version of capitalism we operate is one where the largest participant (planet Earth) is only being stolen from; never being paid.
  - chana_masala 5y ago
    Thank you, that's my sentiment precisely and thoroughly stated.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    That's pretty much what carbon credits are. We have them, they just need to be expanded and developed. And ideally not subverted and transformed into just another tax. The current system, as far as I understand it, is a market. One of the better ideas I've seen governments implement. You can purchase carbon credits only to the extent other carbon credits are on the market - like people planting trees.
  - jtbayly 5y ago
    So do you think all the people breathing air right now are stealing it unless they first ask Mother Earth whether they may have it? What should the payment be?

neltnerb 5y ago

And here I was hoping for something non-vacuous, like that you should have to pay a price when you buy something and when you dispose of it. Is it insightful now that buying stuff you won't use is a waste of money? This is why you should always have a cooldown period before buying anything, to help avoid letting marketing influence you as heavily versus your actual needs.

erikerikson 5y ago

There are other dimensions of cost. Storage space consumption and the payment for rights to the space, for example. Complexity of inventory management for a second. Eventually you pay the time and attention, it not also monetary, cost of disposal.

MathMonkeyMan 5y ago

This sounds like semantics. If I buy a flute, I get a carefully configured bundle of metal, cork, and leather pads. I didn't pay for the skill. Likewise, when I buy a novel, I didn't pay for the knowledge. It's not a second cost, it's two purchases.

_bfhp 5y ago

> we reflexively overindulge in entertainment and other low-second-price pleasures –- phone apps, streaming services, and processed food — even though their rewards are often only marginally better than doing nothing. But without religion or other compelling organizations or meaningful jobs, it's the most natural way for people feel a part of an experience together. There is a significant return on investment: you get to compare opinions with your family about the latest Marvel movie, or chat with your friends about the newest Taco Bell offering. Otherwise what can you talk about? The problem isn't the presence of a "consumer society" but the absence of meaning.

jay_kyburz 5y ago

This is why I prefer open source software over commercial offerings. I spent years developing expertise in 3d Studio Max and Photoshop, (the second price) but from time to time have found myself in situations where I couldn't use them. These days I prefer Blender and Krita where they are almost always available. (And Linux vs Windows or Mac OS, and Kdenlive vs Premier, and the list goes on.) I consider taking the time to learn these apps an investment.

dhbradshaw 5y ago
I do the same -- that is what moved me from Matlab to Python and Windows to Linux about 15 years ago. I had no idea at the time what a blessing that move was going to be, but the principle of maximizing future freedom led me in the right direction.
Kye 5y ago
I think music makers get lucky. Most of our software has reasonable copy protection. I've never had problems activating or opening something from Ableton or Native Instruments. Some people have trouble, but it's nothing like the horror stories I've heard out of other creative fields. My theory is the people at the top are mostly people who actually use the software or have at least had bad experiences with copy protection and don't want to contribute to the problem.
- MisterSandman 5y ago
  I don't think that's necessarily correct. Music production software isn't as dystopian partially because of the absolute market dominance of Logic Pro - anything else can't compete with it, so the last thing those companies want is more reasons for their customers to not use them. The other reason is people making money - the vast, vast majority of people will never make money from music production or guitar plugins (not because it is inherently worse, but because a lot more people do it for fun, v/s photo or video editing). Photoshop and Premier know that a substantial amount of customers use their products to make a living. OTOH, what you're saying is definitely true to some extent for Guitar Plugins et al. Native Instruments has a bunch of free guitar plugins, and Tonebridge is amazing, and neither have any reason to be free.

nicklaf 5y ago

Hah, I was expecting the "second price" to be some sort of rent or bribe that had to be paid to use something that was independently procured or invented. Like planning something innovative but not having the right social capital in your org to get it approved, or inventing something but not being allowed to use it without first buying the patent rights to related inventions.

erosenbe0 5y ago
Well advocates of an optimal systems of patents (not what we have) would say the returns to society as a result of granting exclusivity are far greater than the cost. So there wouldn't be an amortized net cost to society.

cortesoft 5y ago

This makes sense for some things, but the examples the author uses don't make sense to me. Take the Moby Dick example... the author says you don't get the return on it until you have paid the 16 hour price of reading it... but isn't those sixteen hours the actual reward? You don't read a book to be finished with it, you read it because you like the reading process. The reward starts the first minute you start reading the book. Not only that, but you don't have to finish the book to get something out of reading it. If you enjoyed the time you spent reading, that is enough. This attitude seems very "completionist", where you only get value after you finish something. That isn't how I view things. Also, why does he think mindless apps and games are the same as doing nothing? The idea is you enjoy the time spent playing the game. Sure, you don't end up with anything after, but you enjoyed the time.

cafard 5y ago
Sixteen hours to read Moby Dick? That recalls the old Woody Allen joke about speed-reading: "I read War and Peace in two hours. It's about Russia."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- yepthatsreality 5y ago
  This quote lead me down this rabbit hole: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/08/speed-reading/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/08/speed-reading/
- popcube 5y ago
  this is how nomal people read book, maybe it is not best, but still most common way to contact literature
  - barbazoo 5y ago
    What are "normal people"?

leetrout 5y ago

I am the worst for not taking care if things I own. I've noticed an increased sense of joy and satisfaction by when I, for example, wash and wax my car. Instead of just using it when I need to go somewhere spending time taking care of it reminds me i own it, that it was a large purchase and keeping clean and in proper working order is beneficial and I should be proud. It has definitely helped me be less materialistic this past year and really appreciate the things I have purchased.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago
By optimizing for initial purchase price, I often find that I don't take care of my stuff because it was never that good to begin with. When I had a car I loved, I took way better care of it than other vehicles simply because I found it to be a joy to drive. Alas, good care doesn't protect against hit & run accidents. We had a good eight years together. IMO, people often don't bother to care for their belongings because their belongings just aren't worthwhile or deprecate too rapidly: you bought that PC last week? Throw it out, it's an antique.
- leetrout 5y ago
  I think it is a legitimate problem here in the US. So much waste. No more repair.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    IMO, it seems that the problem became a self-reenforcing cycle when the middle classes learned that they could optimize on price on nonessentials in order to free up money for the things they truly cared about. That caused markets to bifurcate into cheap garbage that, in a just world, would not be worthwhile at any price and luxury products priced for the wealthy. Mid-price mid-quality repairable goods mostly no longer exist.
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
That's a little bit like the Ikea effect where people who assemble their furntiure themselves value it more than people who don't. This also leads onto another problem which is a lot of things you own demand attention and money throughout their life. Cars are the obvious example which demand new tyres, servicing, fuel, cleaning, their own house to be stored in, etc. Even the bookshelf that Moby Dick sits on will need dusting from time to time.

jasperry 5y ago

"Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them." --Schopenhauer

strulovich 5y ago

The author seems to have mostly stumbled upon the old “time is money” adage. People today have much more money (or purchasing power) than pre industrial people. They have the same amount of time. There’s a big consequence to your behaviors whether you have more time, or more money. When you have more time, you backpack, take long buses and sleep in hostels. When you have more money than time you fly, use guided tours to do things quickly etc (all within your preferences of course) The author then goes through the problem with what another comment described as “completionist attitude”. That’s not necessarily a good way to live your life I reckon.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

crims0n 5y ago

This idea really resonates with me. I started out life pretty poor, and am fortunate enough now to be able to purchase most anything I want. What I no longer have however, is time. I found myself purchasing things I want to have time for, but in all reality don't. Thinking about the second cost before hitting that buy button may be a good way for me to stop cluttering my life up with stuff I don't need, and the associated stress of knowing it's sitting there waiting to eat up time I don't have.

jspaetzel 5y ago
Now that you can afford to, why not buy some time for yourself instead of stuff?
- srik 5y ago
  Youth is wasted on the old.
- hahajk 5y ago
  Maids and cloth-folding services are great, but a lot of people who have a whole lot of money but no time are working 60-80 hours a week (many work even more of course.) But you’re giving up more than money if you quit and take a 40 hour a week job. Jobs with fewer weekly hours often aren’t as glamorous and probably don’t have that feeling of “velocity”. Trying to take less than 40 hours a week and you’re probably not going to be a first class member of the company. If Bob takes off every Friday, how can he manage his full time team? And if a company tries to employ people at 30 hours a week as policy, how can they possibly compete?
  - bruce511 5y ago
    When you're in a culture it's hard to spot the things that are not "normal". From an external point of view working 60-80 hours a week is not "normal"[1] It's a very US centric thing. In, dare I say, most countries a 40 hour week (or less in places) is normal and working past that is not expected, and often frowned upon.[2] If you are in the SV rat race, where you do 80 hours a week, then you can't imagine a world where people do less than that. But (spoiler alert) it works out just fine. On the other hand if you have successfully indoctrinated employees to work for you for 100 hours a week growing your business for you, selling you their lives for nothing more than money, then by all means get rich off their sweat. [1] I'm referring to regular salary work here, not minimum wage service jobs. [2] there are also countries, often the same ones, that _require_ you to take 4 weeks of paid vacation every year.

iliketrains 5y ago

Interesting read. I'd argue that there is also a third price -- the price of getting rid of it. While throwing something in a garbage may be "cheap", there are many hidden costs, especially for the society as a whole. I have definitely started to consider "price of disposal" when purchasing new tings.

Xeoncross 5y ago
Well, even if you are totally oblivious to the cost to the environment (we all are at times) - there are real, immediate costs to getting read of many items. Ask anyone how many hours they took to sell a car, house, or their art work and you can see 'ending' costs add up quickly - other items often have disposal costs like appliances and tires.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I think most of those costs for a house, car, or piece or art are only present because of an attempt to recover some of the first cost. If you just want to be rid of those things, the third cost can be quite low.
- vl 5y ago
  Only if you want to sell above market price, sell slightly below, and it’s gone in minutes/hours. Underprice car by 5% and put on FB marketplace, you’ll get first offer in 10 minutes and 20 offers in an hour.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
dhbradshaw 5y ago
I learned this the hard way when trying to create iron nanoparticles. I found a great deal on a fair amount of iron pentacarbonyl while I was working at LANL. It was a few dollars to buy. Later I learned that it would cost thousands of dollars to dispose of!
- tdeck 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

Yes, I paid for my music, but then the Audio Home Recording Act made sure I paid an additional piracy tax on my harddrives too.

edlinfan 5y ago

https://archive.is/mrpNt https://archive.is/mrpNt

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

DarylZero 5y ago

> With all the wonderful toys on offer, almost nobody feels like they have quite enough money, enough acquisition power I don't have anywhere near enough money (I'm literally under the poverty line) but I definitely feel like I have enough "acquisition power." I don't want to acquire more, I want to sort through all my junk and get rid of most of it.

mod 5y ago
Figuring out how much is "enough" has been incredibly valuable to me. It turns out I'm already quite wealthy in the categories that are important to me. I, too, am trying to get rid of a lot of things. Not to be a minimalist or anything, but to quit feeling like I owe time to those objects and the spaces they occupy, and instead focus even more time into the things I care more about.

gnicholas 5y ago

I sort of understand the example about the book, but what about a video game? Certainly playing a video game doesn't count as 'paying for it' again. But in that light, the book example doesn't really make sense, at least for books that are enjoyable to read. Some books you read to get the nuggets of knowledge, perhaps for business purposes. But many books are actually enjoyable to read, at least ostensibly!

pthread_t 5y ago

Is the page down now?

ComputerGuru 5y ago
https://archive.is/mrpNt https://archive.is/mrpNt

akeck 5y ago

In my experience, I eventually pay for everything three times. Once to get, once to use (to get the return), and once to dispose. I'm continually surprised at the time cost of the last one.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

tchock23 5y ago

Liked the article, but did anyone else find it odd they’re asking you to do a ‘Depth Year’ in a… Facebook group? The concept sounds appealing, but a Facebook group is one of the last places I would associate with finding ‘depth’ (Slack or Discord being a close second and third).

BlueTemplar 5y ago
Yeah, the irony...

antisthenes 5y ago

From my perspective with a bit of economic background, the author is attempting to describe opportunity cost in the most roundabout and counterintuitive way possible. Personally, I think reading the standard definition first would be much more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

kebman 5y ago
I honestly think the author made a pretty bad point. Time isn't money. Instead money is a construct that is very useful for the exchange of goods. Sure, part of the argument for a price is time, but the agreed upon price is not an expression of time alone, but mostly supply and demand. That's why you are more handsomely awarded for making things that are actually in demand, and thus valuable for the other party. But sure you can measure just about anything as a "cost" if you like. Personally I find a lot of work quite enjoyable, though. So is it then a "cost" for me to endure it?

manmal 5y ago

There‘s this scene in the movie „Walk the Line“ (about Johnny Cash“ where John fails to correctly operate a tractor that he bought (first price) alongside with the estate he was now living on. He hadn’t spent the second price to get familiar with his estate and the tractor, which resulted with him ending up in the river, falling off the tractor. His inability of paying the second price is what gets him almost killed, and is the reason his family rallies behind him to help him get his life in order. I could never put the concept from the scene in words, but first and second price describes this problem perfectly.

throwawayarnty 5y ago

This second price is obvious for anyone who has downloaded a Gb worth of classic eBooks and realised their life is not long enough to read through them all.

Nevermark 5y ago

First price: aquisition Second price: utilization Third price: room, board and feeding The third price is the total cost required to own something, independent of any utilization. Think rent on storage units filled with unused and forgotten items. Or simply the clutter and lost useful space in a room due to the simple presence of an object. The third price is often the worst.

Too 5y ago
Oh yes. Don’t under estimate how upkeep on small items can quickly escalate to require even more stuff. Book needs new bookshelf, bookshelf needs bigger room, room need bigger house, house need lawn, lawn need lawn mower, lawn mower need garage, garage need paint job, and so on. Think about all the items you own and if you really use them or if they are there “just in case” or to support some other useless single purpose item. Not saying you shouldn’t buy the things you enjoy and your garage might be a joy for other reasons. Just be mindful that once you reach the limit of one space, practicing one-in one-out is a very good idea. People renting storage units (not temporarily) are frankly just sad. How are you ever going to use something if it’s stowed away so deep.

_Adam 5y ago

This is an interesting perspective but it only applies in cases where the use case doesn't already exist. For example, shoes are exempt. Another example I like is wood working tools. I need to cut wood in a certain way; buying a miter saw (while requiring a bit of setup and on boarding) has a net negative "second price" given I'm already committed to replacing every baseboard in my house. But I like the author's perspective, so I agree that we should at least consider the second price and prioritize purchase of items for which it is negative.

Shank 5y ago
Shoes aren't exempt though. You're just paying the price as soon as you start wearing them. If you have only one pair of shoes, that's every day. But there are a lot of people with more than one pair of shoe, for different occasions, and many unworn pairs of shoes around.

winkeyless 5y ago

What I found helpful is: Think ahead. What if I could afford it? What does acquiring this actually mean to me? Will it make me happier (however you define it). Be careful what you wished for.

kebman 5y ago

So time is money... Except it isn't. Instead money is a construct that is very useful for the effective exchange of goods, and not a measure of time. In fact it is just a saying, because wage slaves usually don't see much variance in how they're awarded for their time. As such money is instead an expression of supply and demand. The time spent on making some good is merely an argument for some minimum pay, but if the thing you made is worthless to the other party, then there is no guarantee that you'll be rewarded for the effort you made over time. If all else is equal, then sure, you can save money by working faster. But there are a lot of ways to work around working faster, such as working smarter or making time into your friend, say by buying something that compounds over time. Time, on the other hand, is a constant. Whether you "make use" of the time or not is irrelevant. Add to this that about eight hours a day is "wasted" to sleep! You only ever have a rough measuring stick as for how long you'll live, and beyond that point, time stops bearing any meaning what so ever for you, because you're dead. That is quite important, because you can't experience time when you're dead. And so, from your perspective, time stops existing until your next experience, however long that may take. Now what does that tell you? Well, for one, it should probably tell you that time isn't nearly as valuable as folks make it out to be, though what you make out of this life is of course pretty important. And so you might value other things more than the hustle and bustle of making something faster or on time. Instead perhaps enjoy life more.

bitcoinboy11 5y ago

See s

jakey_bakey 5y ago

Feels like a lament on Steam sales, the most extreme example of only paying the first price.

Bendy 5y ago

I’ve not managed to read the article since its site’s choked. However I wonder if like some of the comments here it touches on something that has only become more stark with increasing automation and mass surveillance. That labor tends to consumption and vice versa. These two otherwise orthonormal concepts collapse into each other in a manner perhaps related to the swings between pleasure and jouissance.

slategruen 5y ago

After about a year of online shopping spree heavily induced by lockdowns, I decided to record and analyze all the purchases I made online and not surprisingly, a lot of those are either left unused or broken. This made me realize how a lot of purchases I do are really just because of impulse. Now, I try to be more conscious about what I buy through simple accounting. I always record everything I order with my ledger. Together with that, I also have a list of the items I currently own with an indication how much I paid for it initially and how long have I been using them. Regular tracking really helps to make sense of your financial decisions.

jakub_g 5y ago
By default I don't buy things on Amazon, but just add it to the cart, and keep in cart for weeks. I sometimes go over the cart. If there's something I truly need, it would come up often enough in mind that the next time I check cart it will make me click 'buy'.

raman162 5y ago

This article reminds me of a book I'm reading now, "Four thousand weeks: time management for mortals"[1]. One of the repeated themes is that every choice you make to do something, you are choosing not to do any number of things at that given time. Obvious when hearing it, but it's really made me ponder about how I choose to spend my time. [1]: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54785515-four-thousand-weeks https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/54785515-four-thousan...

mckirk 5y ago
Great to see this on here! Since I've started listening to it, I go around recommending the book to basically everyone. The truths in there are so simple in theory, but it's still eye opening to be confronted with them.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  I really like some of the viewpoints and perspectives, but I found the material pretty thin and not worthy of an entire book. It's a dozen short blog entries stretched into several hundred pages of text. I recommend it as "skim in a few sittings" vs. read.
  - raman162 5y ago
    I think this happens with most self-help books. Most of the time it's just lecturing about a single point for a number of pages that can be summed up into a paragraph or even a sentence at times. Personally for me, the value of the long form style is that it allows the author's message to brew slowly in my head.

MatekCopatek 5y ago

It's funny how the author frames this post in a very economic way. Personally, I would never describe reading a book as something where I'm investing and/or extracting value. It's extra ironic that the entire issue they're describing is caused exactly by such (IMHO) over-economic thinking.

boomlinde 5y ago
Are you trying to tell me that some random self-help dude shower thought isn't making you get better at being human?
stdbrouw 5y ago
Framing it as paying a price to be paid might be a bit awkward, but surely the idea that we often make aspirational purchases without thinking through what it will take to actually get any enjoyment out of those items afterwards, resonates with many and has little to do with ultra-utilitarian thinking?
jiggawatts 5y ago
I do! A long time ago I started computing entertainment in terms of quality hours per dollar. So for example a good book might cost $20 but last ten hours of high quality entertainment, which is very good value at $2 per hour. Movie tickets are not-so-good at something like $20 per hour, $40+ if I have a date and we're buying snacks. Some computer games are ludicrously efficient. I never paid a cent for some games and played them for thousands of hours. Even factoring in the cost of the PC and electricity, we're looking at cents per hour. Holidays are the worst, at something like $1K+ per day or $60 per waking hour. I had to explain to the missus that we're wasting money going to a so-so restaurant on an overseas holiday. Since we've already sunk thousands into just being present at that location, and every hour was costing us Real Money, we may as well go to restaurant that's just shy of 5 stars and costs triple digits. Do the sky dive. Then do a dive under the ocean. Snowboard. See something spectacular! Otherwise, what's the point? We're burning money for what... doing nothing... but in a different part of the planet!?
- jll29 5y ago

sleightofmind 5y ago

Useful insight. Just what I needed. Thanks!

hrdwdmrbl 5y ago

Another cost is what i call “maintenance cost”. The thinking about, cleaning, repairing, recharging, moving, etc. Even a pencil. I must store it, remember where it is, take it out, clean under it, sharpen it, move it out of the way to get another thing, and finally discard it. These costs compound with each new acquisition.

Puts 5y ago

I actually tend to see anything I buy as a black hole that will suck more money into it. A good example is when you get a bicycle, you do the equation and realize that within two years you will have saved in on the cost of public transportation. But it's when you start using it you realize that suddenly you always end up sweaty arriving to work so you need to buy good ventilated outdoor clothes and then a little bit later the winter arrives and you realize you need the same type of winter clothes, and then your first tier brakes and you realize you don't have any tools, so not only do you need to buy a new tier but also the tools. And here the initial smart calculation has fallen apart long time ago. Don't get me wrong. There's a lot of benefits riding a bike to work so it may still be very much worth it. But once you have this realization you can apply the same logic to anything you buy or thinking of buying which may helps prioritizing because there's just so many black holes you can have in your life.

i5heu 5y ago
I think you mean Opportunity cost? > In microeconomic theory, the opportunity cost of a particular activity option is the loss of value or benefit that would be incurred (the cost) by engaging in that activity, relative to engaging in an alternative activity offering a higher return in value or benefit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost?wprov=sfti1
- jasode 5y ago
  >I think you mean Opportunity cost? No, I'd say the gp is talking more about "hidden TCO" (Total Cost of Ownership). Opportunity Cost is about finite time which forces the choice of one action to come at the expense of other alternative actions. Hidden TCO is being ignorant of auxiliary costs of the base products (accessories, maintenance, etc.) An extreme example of that is a "free puppy" can become one of the most expensive items to own especially when you're uneducated about the true TCO of dogs. I.e. In addition to obvious vet bills, going on a vacation now means you have to pay for a dog sitter which you didn't initially account for. Owning recreational boats is another example of hidden TCO.
maximus-decimus 5y ago

ruaraidh 5y ago

SergeAx 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20220123073501/https://www.raptitude.com/2022/01/everything-must-be-paid-for-twice/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220123073501/https://www.rapti...

ConfusedDog 5y ago

I definitely has a consumer addiction on buying used books, discounted games, new electronics, etc. This article is enlightening to me as it helps me to analyze my behavior. I really should only buy an item like books when the Value is > than the Cost. What it looks like right now (using used book as example): Cost = the amount of money I bought the book Value = the rush feeling that I have about being a reader/phantom feeling of being a little better But actually: Cost = the amount of money I bought the book + keeping/transporting the book + not reading it + fueling to my addictive behavior spiral Value = none, maybe when I sell the damn thing with a profit - the time and effort = negative value Overall, the value is far less than the cost. This article value is ++ for me.

shove 5y ago

* cries in arcade bar owner *

dusted 5y ago

I've tried to access this since this morning without luck, the plain text google cached version works for me: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dLyPRvNlrcoJ:https://www.raptitude.com/2022/01/everything-must-be-paid-for-twice/&strip=1&vwsrc=0 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dLyPRvN...

uslic001 5y ago

Site is down.

durmonski 5y ago

Great article. I often think about this. We usually only pay the first price without realising that there is extra thing (price) that needs paying.