Dont think of price, think of cost per use

Re:Dont think of price, think of cost per use by BeetleB on Friday June 10, 2022 @02:13AM (#31690678)

> I think it can be: say you're comparing two cars with the same fuel efficiency, one's more expensive and more luxurious (or to make the same efficiency less contrived, you're considering the 'luxury interior package' upgrade) - roughly how many times (or hours) will you use the car over your ownership; it might be helpful to consider the per use (or hour) cost of that extra comfort.

You can get away with this because you are fixing the time interval: You'll presumably drive both cars the same amount, for the same number of hours. Hence a total amount vs per use (or per hour or per year) gives the same result. What the author is doing is comparing per use cost for very different entities, with unclear timelines.

Ask a random person: Is it better to use your phone for 2 cents, or eat an $8 McDonald's meal?[1] Putting aside that both serve very different needs, the question is missing the component: Over what time frame? The phone will die one day, but I'll always have the option to eat McDonald's.

[1] I have no idea where he lives where a McDonald's meal is over $14...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Dont think of price, think of cost per use by OJFord on Friday June 10, 2022 @09:41AM (#31694051)

Yes, I don't think it's helpful for comparing apples and oranges, just for considering whether you want one thing at all, or which among a single class of thing.

An example I've often used before is a Netflix subscription - I wouldn't pay much more for it, but a lot of things look like a bad deal/much lower utility in comparison to it. Pint of beer = half a month's Netflix, for example. It's not helpful, it's a recipe for overpaying for some things and unnecessarily depriving yourself of others.

[ Parent | on HN ]