I have seen it in many people where when a choice has to be made, the first factor considered is cost. The need/ want/ benefits etc are always put behind the cost. I my self have seen the effects of this, and especially when ultimately the cheapest choice has ended up costing more.
people are lazy- they have the pleasure of doing nothing before doing something
-Imp
sorry for getting back so late, haven’t been a bit busy,
I can see where your coming from with the lazy comment, as in it removes the need to reason the choice, by simplifying it into just one factor.
I have tended to go towards the idea that they lack the ability to look beyond the surface (price) to see what the choice actually means to them.
Outside of cost there is nothing.
If you are referring to cost in terms of money, then there are obvious reasons:
First, money is what, in our age, gets us what we want. Medical attention, food, shelter - things that ultimately make our lives better. It’s hard to show common empirical evidence of a person without any money who is happier than a person with money. It’s easy enough to theorize, though.
You also have to consider the acquisition of money - time and effort. Whether your job is blue-collar or white-collar, you are commiting your time and energy to something with the goal of being compensated for it.
So, what it ultimately boils down to is that when considering money as the primary factor of a decision, what’s actually being considered is money, time, energy, and comfort.
Everything, including human relationships, is about economics.
Cost is often a factor as most people don’t have unlimited means. In the mind we must make a cost/benefit analysis and allocate our resources in such a way as to maximized their effectiveness. The ‘cheapest’ may not always be the most inexpensive option, when viewed in terms of efficacy over time.
Depending upon the decision I have to make, I generally will evaluate the situation on a cost for value basis. If A is cheaper than B, and if A meets the minimum criterion of suitability, and A offers 80% of the perfomance of B @ 50% of the cost, then I would consider A the better value. Obviously there are some areas of life and some circumstances under which B might still be the better value.
A good example of short-term - long term costs: We know that it is better to drive a fuel efficient car. Many of the vehicles on the road right now aren’t. So here is your scenario:
You are driving a 10 year old car that is paid for. All your costs are in general maintenance and fuel costs. The run up in fuel prices has increased your fuel costs 100.00 -200.00 a month. You decided to buy one of the new hybrids and save money. You shop and find out that the 45,000 hybrid will only cost you 800.00/mo. for 6 years. Boy, that makes sense doesn’t it? And that is the problem. Long term, it would be better if everyone drove a fuel efficient car. It’s much more green, reduces dependence on foreign oil, all the positive stuff. Short term you’d have to have rocks for brains to go for that deal. And so, we keep paying the high fuel costs because it’s short-term cheaper than the alternative…
cost is related to happiness in many cases.
I think most people desire happiness. And they will go to whatever “cost” to get it.
I think many people miscalculate what will really make them happy. Some people think money will get them happiness, and so they become a doctor for example, but they forget that they have to spend all of their 20’s in classrooms, and work so and so much later.
They miscalculated.
What makes one happy may not make another happy, so I think the best way is to understand the complexity of cost for acting.
(I don’t know if I was able to convey waht I meant in this thread. I need sleepy)
Maybe a result of the development of patrimonial society: trade is the foremost function in such societies for self-sustenance. The importance of cost becomes an inherited belief for one’s thriving.
And yeah, I agree that people are lazy.