I refuse to peg every remaining second of my existence to the highest hourly rate someone else will pay me for it. I won't say "My time is valued at $XX per hour, so it makes sense to pay $XX for someone else to do this." Valuing all time at an hourly rate is logical if a human is trying to maximize the amount of money made across their life - since you could theoretically pay for this task to be done while working, you would have more money than if you did the task yourself. Maybe you work every waking second.
But I don't. I don't want to.
I want to maximize life enjoyment across my life, not the money earned. Instead, I compare what I'm doing now to what I could be, including consequences, and decide which I'd rather do. Then I do that.
---
Not to mention that money has limited utility - you can only trade it for things which currently exist, and which other people are willing to trade. No amount of money will buy you a Star Trek Transporter, nor will it revive dead people or let you live forever. It won't buy you food from the ground; you have to trade it for something else and put that in the ground, and wait a season. Most of what money will buy is boring.
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 mentioned reasons titled "the factual" and I started another section titled "the existential" [reasons I find the principle problematic], where I started to delve more into why perhaps you don't want to put a price tag at all. But as the post deals more with concrete criticism and possible improvements of the application of such a price tag and assuming its existence, it felt out of place and I decided to explore it more in another post.
EDIT: also, as another wrote here you do have situations/periods in life where you may need to apply such a metric and then proper application and self-reflection is important.
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, I saw that all of the tip calculators focused on exact calculations, even making a point of excluding the state tax from the tip. At least one went so far as to incorporate a state tax rate database! My idea was to write a tip calculator app that put things in perspective, that rounded and swagged, with the intention of making tipping and payment easy while influencing people's perspective and generosity (e.g. Just put down a $20 bill rather than $19.42 or if you're paying CC, tip $4 in cash rather than $3.91 on your card). Then I realized that by having people use a tip calculator I was undermining my own message! Anyone who is uncomfortable with "Just take the bill, divide by 10, then double, and round. If you aren't poor, be generous" just doesn't get it.
What is the cost of living an anal, money-focused life? See my other comments.
Different reasons for why the principle doesn't hold water resonate with different people. The tax issue was more about "if you already do this, beware of ...", not about why it's wrong (that's the rest of the post).
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.
It is useful to have a metric of how other humans value your time and ability, true. And storing enough resources so you don't have to go without essentials is just good planning. But it seems nonsensical to base your entire self-valuation as a human on that arbitrary number.
"Monetary freedom" makes limited sense to me - free from what? Free from having to be productive (to other humans in society) in order to get food and keep your shelter?
Eventually, you will come across a situation where you need to decide if you will "work" in your free time (painting your house, mowing your lawn, etc), or if you will pay someone to do this so that you can free up your own time to "maximize life enjoyment". The time = money equation isn't just about always earning money, it's about cost savings & cost avoidance as well.
You have to decide, what makes you happiest? If it is freeing up your time to do something else, then you might even pay a premium to have someone paint your house for you.
> you might even pay a premium to have someone paint your house for you.
Until paying for stuff starts to mean you have to go to work more, thus cutting into your "free" time from the other direction. i.e. you're not spending your "free" time painting your house, you're spending it working to pay someone else to paint your house.
You have to decide, what makes you happiest? If it is freeing up your time to do something else, then you might even pay a premium to have someone paint your house for you.
Exactly, ultimately these are all pathways to the same question/answer.
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. Anyone one else is just giving their opinion.
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 often hear". The conclusion you left me with is: given you're a "High Paid" engineer, you should not fix your own car or help out your community restaurant because the math doesn't work out. However, if you want to screw around with "non-billable" tasks, that's cool, you'll just pay for it.
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.
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, 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.
Really excellent writeup. I think many people are squeamish with the idea of "personal opportunity cost" also because in their experience "personal numeric value"==easy unhealthy way to measure (seemingly) one's worth and to compare two individuals value ("I earn $10/H more so I'm better than him/He earns more so he's better than me"), which can be unhealthy. But it should be approached with as little ego (in the self-worth sense) as possible and as a tool you can use to better self-reflect on your life and your decisions.
Definitely. It's understandable why people dislike these sterile scientific considerations of very real and human problems, but they're incredibly useful. Though romantic notions of things transcending dollar valuation are well-intentioned, they shouldn't get in the way of that utility.
But I don't. I don't want to.
I want to maximize life enjoyment across my life, not the money earned. Instead, I compare what I'm doing now to what I could be, including consequences, and decide which I'd rather do. Then I do that.
---
Not to mention that money has limited utility - you can only trade it for things which currently exist, and which other people are willing to trade. No amount of money will buy you a Star Trek Transporter, nor will it revive dead people or let you live forever. It won't buy you food from the ground; you have to trade it for something else and put that in the ground, and wait a season. Most of what money will buy is boring.