When I was young(er), I had this crazy scheme for determining the monetary value of things. It boiled down to not spending money faster than I can earn it. More specifically, if it takes less time to enjoy a product than it took to earn the money to afford it, then it's not worth it. For example, back in the minimum wage days, a 90 minute animated movie for 10$ would fail this test.
Funnily, my two biggest vices both fail this test. Comics and food. A single comic can cost up to 5$, and it can take as little as 5 minutes to read. That's a rate of 1$/minute on the low end, which is a ridiculous value proposition to my minimum wage self. But still, I used to, and continue to, buy them by the bushels. Pretty much the same thing for food, a 10$ sub at subway can be eaten in 15 minutes. That means I'd have to earn 40$/hr to not spend money faster than I earn it! Of course, this hard and fast rule does not take into account the fact that the sub will fuel me for the next 3 hours, or that the comic can be re-read and that it gives me enjoyment just from being around.
Some things of incredibly value include: internet access, DVD TV seasons, novels, university classes, your love.
Replies: 6 comments
The foot massage you got from the underage male prostitute in HK was slightly positive according to your scheme (I paid 15$ to watch you get it and it lasted about 45 minutes). But when you consider the everlasting memory it gave me, it is worth millions.
Posted by Étienne @ 06/13/2007 08:36 PM EST
Hmm, so how does a car fit into that? Is it "if I keep it for 12 yrs" or is it "I drive it x hours a day" (then how does the gas fit in?)
Man, so complicated. :P Interesting way of putting a value on things; I basically relied on my "do I need this?" instinct and often determined that no, I didn't. 'course, I can stand minimalism fairly well, so spending too much money was never a problem for me.
Posted by Rachelle @ 06/13/2007 10:04 PM EST
Your system is so flawed...:P! But, that's obviously the reason why you came up with it at a younger age...;).
Etienne, your post is disturbing...:P!!!
Posted by dAN @ 06/14/2007 08:44 AM EST
you always make these statements without explanation.
flawed, how? why?
Posted by Long @ 06/14/2007 12:16 PM EST
Flawed because you can't measure the value of something using time as the sole basis of measurement. It's not always about quantity, but quality. Sometimes, something that will keep you on the edge of your seat for 15 minutes is worth more than something mundane that lasts 2 hours. In fact, certain things are so boring that their end value is inversely proportional to their duration.
As for an earlier explanation...I was lazy and thought it was self-explanatory...:P!
Now, do I need to explain why Etienne's post is disturbing? Or are we good?...;)!!!
Posted by dAN @ 06/14/2007 04:05 PM EST
I'm just going to let Thai answer the questions regarding my post lol ;).
Posted by Étienne @ 06/16/2007 04:07 PM EST