Your time is not free

[rus_geek]

This is quite amusing, really. The OP was commenting on the point that if you only consider the monetary cost of a project, you're missing the big picture. So a bunch of people are bashing the OP and saying that if you only consider the monetary cost of project, you're missing the big picture. Anyone catch that?

The original theory that your time is worth something is perfectly valid. Some of us got thrown off by attaching a $ to that worth. The arguments against saying your time is worth something mostly say that the enjoyment of a project is worth something. But enjoying something doesn't put money in your pocket either!

Somewhere, there's a mathematician locked up in his basement with eighty-seven chalkboards working on a formula that will give you the guaranteed right answer to the DIY v. hire decision for every task. Meanwhile, each of us has to come up with our own solution. Something like:

COST = materials cost + time cost - enjoyment cost - experience gained

Say I can buy a new brush hog for $800. Can buy a decent used one for $400. I bought one beat to @#$t at an auction for $100. Got some free sheet metal to repair the deck. Spent four hours taking it apart, welding on a new deck and bolting back on the hardware. This was my first welding project, so I got to spend time with my brother-in-law learning. And I know *every* part of my brush hog now since I've installed every one of them. How much is my enjoyment and experience "worth" in this? $100 ? $1000 ?

COST = $100 + $360 - $100 - $100 = $260 Cheaper than a used one!

It's really hard to measure our enjoyment and experience in dollar amounts, which is why it's really hard to attach a dollar amount to our "fun" time.

I got a little long-winded, but I guess my point is that most of y'all are agreeing and you just having figured it out yet!

 

[Travelover]

............

I got a little long-winded, but I guess my point is that most of y'all are agreeing and you just having figured it out yet!

It is called being in violent agreement. :laughing:

 

[smstonypoint]

Somewhere, there's a mathematician locked up in his basement with eighty-seven chalkboards working on a formula that will give you the guaranteed right answer to the DIY v. hire decision for every task. Meanwhile, each of us has to come up with our own solution. S

WARNING!!! This post discusses economics.

Give me your "utility function" and I will solve the problem for you. It will make the math easier for me if it is of the Cobb-Douglas form, but I can handle others.

A little economics humor, very little.

Seriously, neo-classical economists assume that individuals are rational and that they maximize their utility (satisfaction) subject to constraints on their income and time. That being said, neo-classical economists would argue that you have implicitly solved that problem when you make your decision.

Economists can't observe utility functions directly, but we can make predictions about how individuals will respond to changes in prices, income, etc.

The bottom line. If you are rational (and you are, aren't you?), your choice is the best choice for you.

Steve

 

[LD1]

Somewhere, there's a mathematician locked up in his basement with eighty-seven chalkboards working on a formula that will give you the guaranteed right answer to the DIY v. hire decision for every task. Meanwhile, each of us has to come up with our own solution. Something like:

COST = materials cost + time cost - enjoyment cost - experience gained

It is quite simple actually. At least in math terms.

If.......Time cost=enjoyent cost + experience gained they cancel each other out.

There...COST=materials cost.


I think that is the way most here are viewing it.

No one is missing the big picture here. I would much rather spend time in the shop "tinkering as my wife calls it" than sitting in the house trying to find something worth watching on my "250 some channels" at 1:30 in the afternoon.

If someone has anything at all that they would rather do than work on a project, then YES their time is worth something. But if you are like me, there is really nothing I enjoy more than spending a day in the shop "tinkering" on something. I buy "junk" off c-list all the time because I am always looking for that next project. My current think is buying used implements and also chainsaws off c-list and at auctions. I then fix them up and re-sell them for more than I paid for them. THAT puts money in my pocket. No where even close to $90 per hour, probabally closer to $10-20 per hour. But I absolutly enjoy it. I guess I look at it this way......anythiing else I do, like watching TV, COSTS me $10-$20 per hour.

 

[bobodu]

YOUR TIME isn't really YOURS...you are only borrowing it.

 

[SensibleNick]

YOUR TIME isn't really YOURS...you are only borrowing it.

From whom?

Maaaan.... I Hate owing people... what am I going to have to do when I give it back?

 

[Renze]

This is quite amusing, really. The OP was commenting on the point that if you only consider the monetary cost of a project, you're missing the big picture. So a bunch of people are bashing the OP and saying that if you only consider the monetary cost of project, you're missing the big picture. Anyone catch that?

Everybody catches that, but get annoyed that the OP tries to bash through an open door: Even though his points are economically valid, would he also argue with a Hells Angel about cost of ownership and reliability of a Harley, over a dull but reliable BMW bike ?? i guess not.

 

[Iplayfarmer]

Seriously, neo-classical economists assume that individuals are rational and that they maximize their utility (satisfaction) subject to constraints on their income and time. That being said, neo-classical economists would argue that you have implicitly solved that problem when you make your decision.

Wasn't there recently a Nobel Prize or some such given to a team of economists that did research to indicate that individuals don't actually act rationally? I don't remember the whole story, but do remember thinking at the time that this turns a lot of my college economics on its ear, and all of a sudden the successes of WalMart and Starbucks make sense. The other thought I had was that it took a team of high brow academics to prove what every husband already knows... shoppers don't usually think rationally.

 

[smstonypoint]

Wasn't there recently a Nobel Prize or some such given to a team of economists that did research to indicate that individuals don't actually act rationally? I don't remember the whole story, but do remember thinking at the time that this turns a lot of my college economics on its ear, and all of a sudden the successes of WalMart and Starbucks make sense. The other thought I had was that it took a team of high brow academics to prove what every husband already knows... shoppers don't usually think rationally.

WARNING!!!!. More about economics.

There's a branch of economics called "behavioral economics" that focuses on some aspects of observed behavior that appear to conflict with the predictions of models that assume rationality. Several Nobel Laureates have made contributions to behavioral economics.

Steve

 

[Scotty370]

Man, you folks are getting waaaaaayy, too deep in this for my blood! I just think that "Shop-Time" or "Seat-Time" is something I want to do..........!~S