The Money/Time fallacy
31–40 of 42 posts
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get exciting things for money (travelling for example is not always trivial financially). More to the point, both point of views have utility. I criticize "my time has a numerical value" in the post, but it is useful to have some metric in order to get your fair market value (i.e. in negotiations) or when you are in a period where all you want is to gain monetary freedom. In my original draft I had the mentio…
Sure, I get that it is useful to realize that spending 3 hours researching a better deal to save $20 is a poor use of time. But your examples were not at all like that, and you focused on things like factoring in tax consequences, which presumes what I consider a fallacy, that one can calculate opportunity cost to that degree of accuracy for something like life . When the iPhone App Store had just launched years ago,…
eevilspock, who is obsessive about food, the anorexic saying "I don't need to focus on food" or the person saying "there are different ways of utilizing food, I should be thoughtful which is healthier for me and for my current goals"?
There's a case to be made that being the third person who says "All my life are defined by the exact amount of calories I'm eating" is unhealthy like the first one, but saying that these are the only kind of people who gain value by food advice is a stretch.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#33I agree 100% and would even expand the idea a little further. Let's say I make $100/hr at my job. My car breaks down, and it's only $80/hr for a mechanic to fix it. Seems smart. Now my deck needs repainting, and it's $30/hr for someone else to paint it. Gardening? $20/hr. Washing machine broken? $50/hr. Daycare? $30/hr. Housecleaning? $30/hr... etc. etc. etc. Because I'm a Software Engineer, pretty much every service…
All of this assumes I can go to paid work an ever-increasing amount, which is obviously not true. The amount of hours I can work in a week is fixed.
That is indeed the biggest fallacy I ultimately saw in me, friends and comments regarding this issue.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#34My first question when considering outsourcing a task is this: is it a chore or a project? A project is some usually non-recurring task in a field that I enjoy and/or would like to get better at. A chore is some usually recurring task in a field that I either don't enjoy or see no need to improve my skills in. My advice is to outsource chores (to the extent that you can afford) and prefer a DIY approach to projects (…
I think most people would agree they have a bulk of time where they procrastinate and it would've been more helpful (even on a strict financial level) to just do the chore yourself at that time.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#35Have to agree... Further - it's been said before - when it comes to time -vs- money - you can always find a way to make more money if you need it - but what you can't do is make more time - time goes by whether you use it or not. If I have a choice between playing with my kids and turning down some overtime, which pays very well, I'll take spending the day with my kids. That time can't be replaced later. Odds are I c…
I think (as the user 'grecy' mentioned in another place) that as a population, programmers are in a relatively unique position. They (we) can be in a situation where there are a lot of clear opportunities to make more money given more time investment (that can't be simply said for a coroner or a florist for example) AND having it being a lot of money. Couple that with that that it's true from a relatively young age (out of college) and it gives you some pretty interesting (blessed) challenges.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you understand that opportunity cost is in fact about choice and trade off, why did you leave out the core of the principal? Focusing only on the money in this DIY / "pay for it" argument is what make it a fallacy. If you change your car repair example so that Don makes much less per hour than the repair cost. It still might make sense for Don to pay the mechanic to do the repair. Only Don can make that choice.…
It's not a post about "The Only Ultimate Way to self-realization". It's a post about "given this statement I often hear, here where it works (and how to improve on it), here where it doesn't". If it doesn't work because of different reasons then: a. Good, please contribute to the discussion b. Different reasons resonate with different people. Therefore someone's "core of the principal" isn't the other's.
As almost everyone here has pointed out, that's just NOT what the concept of "Times is Money" is about. BTW, the different reasons ARE the core of the principal. Of course people are going to make different decisions. But, I guess for you it only works when Billable hour > cost of item.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#37Distraction is the real cost of a car breakdown: missing a meeting, finding a mechanic, bringing the car in, answering the mechanics phone calls, picking the car up according to the mechanic's hours, etc. Repair bill? Lost in the noise. If you're really optimizing, you live walking distance from the office to avoid distracting risks like this.
One reason to consider fixing the car yourself is to accomplish a fully engaging distraction as a break from work, the sort of thing that can lead to creative breakthroughs. If you can schedule it at the right time.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#38I have preached this for a while too. Time is worthless, it is up to you to maximize its value by making decisions to increase income or reduce expense.
Unless you were trying to go for something deeper here, in which case, please expound upon that.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a post about "The Only Ultimate Way to self-realization". It's a post about "given this statement I often hear, here where it works (and how to improve on it), here where it doesn't". If it doesn't work because of different reasons then: a. Good, please contribute to the discussion b. Different reasons resonate with different people. Therefore someone's "core of the principal" isn't the other's.
There is a clear definition for "Opportunity Cost". It's an accepted principal with a long history. From my other comment, I was under the impression that you were not aware of it. Maybe you still aren't. My point is, you are creating the fallacy in your argument by not acknowledging the entire principal. Your use of money as the only driver in the personal decision provides a false conclusion to the "statement you o…
The first is that all valuable things can be measured in terms of other valuable things--including dollars. Opportunity cost tradeoffs of all types can be mapped onto a tradeoff for some quantity of dollars. All things can therefore be measured in dollars, even if you want to be silly and peg the value of things like "true love" as infinite--that's equivalent to infinity dollars. Your time is measurable in money as well.
The second point follows from something either you or someone else noted before. Eventually, paying for things that aren't worth your times adds up, and you have to work more yourself. That's the point! If you can earn more in an hour at work than you would have "earned" by spending an hour painting your house, you make money at no additional expense of time or effort. Alternatively, you could make the same amount of money as you would have gained in house/aesthetic value from painting the house, but spend less time doing it since you are more efficient at work: a time savings. Now, it isn't easy to just "work an extra hour" and get paid for it, but if you make these decisions constantly and trade more time at your job for paying other people to do stuff that isn't worth your time, you'll amass enough saved time to increase your work schedule by a reasonable block.
The key to understanding all of this is that you want to say that the concept of opportunity cost extends beyond money, which it does in a sense--but in another, since all things can be measured in terms of all other things, all opportunity costs have equivalent dollar costs. And so knowing your personal per-hour opportunity cost in dollars is a great way to get a basic quantitative idea of what things are worth your time. If spending an hour with your family is worth more than the $33.74 an hour equivalent that you make at work, it doesn't mean that spending time with your family can't be quantified in terms of dollars; it means that it's worth more than an extra $33.74 but is otherwise difficult to quantify.
And curiously, let's say you reduce your working hours down to 30 a week, the bare minimum you can have to live modestly but comfortably, and spend all the extra time with your family since you love them so much. But why not reduce the hours to 29 a week? Losing that $33.74 every week would put you below the threshold that everyone is happy at. That means that now, $33.74 is worth more than spending the extra hour with your family. In essence, this example shows that the fact that people go to work at all demonstrates how dollar values can outweigh "immeasurable" things like sentimental values, and since they can outweigh, they can be compared, which means that sentimental values have a relative value to marginal dollar value increases or decreases. Therefore, sentimental values can be translated to dollar values. This is a specific case of the general principle noted before, that all things can be measured in dollars, and so it's no sin (and in fact quite handy) to use your dollar/hour opportunity cost liberally when making decisions on how to spend your time.
Re: The Money/Time fallacy
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a clear definition for "Opportunity Cost". It's an accepted principal with a long history. From my other comment, I was under the impression that you were not aware of it. Maybe you still aren't. My point is, you are creating the fallacy in your argument by not acknowledging the entire principal. Your use of money as the only driver in the personal decision provides a false conclusion to the "statement you o…
If I may pitch in: since you're trying so hard to throw around opportunity cost, there are, believe it or not, a couple other important points to consider here. The first is that all valuable things can be measured in terms of other valuable things--including dollars. Opportunity cost tradeoffs of all types can be mapped onto a tradeoff for some quantity of dollars. All things can therefore be measured in dollars, ev…