4 ms·
It was an assumption that you will choose the more value for your money, even if it is pretty negligible. Some people do the opposite, when they buy something
by bmacho 2y ago
It was an assumption that you will choose the more value for your money, even if it is pretty negligible.
Some people do the opposite, when they buy something they choose the less value for their money (when it is negligible), if it maximizes the total value for the society.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 2y ago>It was an assumption that you will choose the more value for your money, even if it is pretty negligible That incurs the opportunity cost of caring and checking labels for a "pretty negligible" marginal win. Fuck that.
- ajuc 2y agoIt frustrates me to no end when people do this with items that expire in a year. You aren't even maximizing your utility, you're just doing the shopping equivalent of "rolling coal".
- crtasm 2y agoRight, I'd get that if it were a case of wanting to store it for a long time or fresh food/things with a much shorter shelf life. I don't personally see any difference in value for this example.