3 ms·
That's a classic case of the sunk cost fallacy. Just because you spent a lot educating someone doesn't mean that you shouldn't get rid of them.
by charcircuit 1y ago
That's a classic case of the sunk cost fallacy. Just because you spent a lot educating someone doesn't mean that you shouldn't get rid of them.
- hnfong 1y agoIt does sound like the classic sunk cost fallacy. But it also implies that the would-be-fired person has become better after being "educated", and probably better than the average newly-hired person replacing them if they are fired...
- ajb 1y ago"all that money" here refers to the money they lost due to the mistake. The sunk cost fallacy refers to money you intended to spend...
- PunchTunnel 1y agoYou may want to refresh yourself on the definition. Sunk cost is resources already spent, which cannot be recovered - the inability to recover it is what drives the reluctance in the case of the fallacy.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 1y agoWhen a generally smart person makes a humiliating million-dollar mistake, then you can trust that person, more than any of their coworkers, to never make that specific mistake again. That's the "expensive education" here.
- charcircuit 1y agoDepending on the mistake it could also mean that they are more likely to make the same mistake. Especially after the memory of the event fades, they may regress to the old way they acted.
- SoftTalker 1y agoIf considered an "investment" (will produce value if retained) it's not a sunk cost.