Spending habits

[Alatriste]

Berkut, your argument has two parts, one very valid, one not so... if you say eating out actually does take more time on average than making lunch, that's a very interesting observation, and I tend to agree with you although, of course, the time employed would vary a lot between persons.

But even if you can't convert your free time in money, that free time has a value for you. It's not that economist assign a monetary value to free time, but rather that they assign a non monetary value to money, i.e. they consider persons as rational beings that try to maximize their satisfaction, and in order to achieve that maximum satisfaction every one assigns a value to reading time time, money, exercise, sleep, etc, etc...   

[Neil]

I am instead assuming (correctly I might add) that a person's time has an intrinsic monetary value and that there is therefore an inherent opportunity cost to any non money making pursuit.

You would be wrong.  Time has no value.  Labour, however, does.  You know, it's young punks like you who figure that your time is worth something right there and that I should pay them for just standing around who really irritate me.

[Rasputin]

Let me know how that works for you. I fail to see how your packing your lunch saves money once you've factored in the value of your own time and your own energy costs. The restaraunt has economies of scale that don't exist in your kitchen.

We've just met, but it sounds like you lack common sense.

I cannot help it that this forum is teeming with those who view their time as having no value. I ought to send you a tuition bill.

You're assuming time can only be valued in monetary terms. 

No; one can value time however one wants. I am instead assuming (correctly I might add) that a person's time has an intrinsic monetary value and that there is therefore an inherent opportunity cost to any non money making pursuit. That cost may be worth it for some reason subjective to the person spending the time, but it is still an objective opportunity cost to anyone capable of productive labor.

Might I suggest you get your nose out of economic theory books and get more real world experience of how others live. 

I'll enjoy my ivory tower; you go make a tuna fish sandwich for lunch.

[Rasputin]

Let me know how that works for you. I fail to see how your packing your lunch saves money once you've factored in the value of your own time and your own energy costs. The restaraunt has economies of scale that don't exist in your kitchen.

We've just met, but it sounds like you lack common sense.

I cannot help it that this forum is teeming with those who view their time as having no value. I ought to send you a tuition bill.

You're assuming time can only be valued in monetary terms. 

No; one can value time however one wants. I am instead assuming (correctly I might add) that a person's time has an intrinsic monetary value and that there is therefore an inherent opportunity cost to any non money making pursuit. That cost may be worth it for some reason subjective to the person spending the time, but it is still an objective opportunity cost to anyone capable of productive labor.

This assumes that most people have the ability to transalte random moments of free time directly into income. I know I do not, and I don't think too many other people do either.

Therefore, the "opportunity" cost is likely very mininal - so minimal that it cannot outweigh the actual monetary cost of going out to lunch.

This is an argument people make to justify blowing a lot of money on eating out to lunch every day, and considering that eating out to lunch probably takes a LOT more time than making lunch, it is utterly spurious.

Not necessarily, I typically have my lunch (and my breakfast and afternoon tea for that matter) brought to me on business days and work through lunch.

When I go out to lunch, it's typically with a business colleague to talk business or strengthen a relationship. It would cost me a fortune to make my lunches.

[Rasputin]

I am instead assuming (correctly I might add) that a person's time has an intrinsic monetary value and that there is therefore an inherent opportunity cost to any non money making pursuit.

You would be wrong.  Time has no value.  Labour, however, does.  You know, it's young punks like you who figure that your time is worth something right there and that I should pay them for just standing around who really irritate me.

Nobody pays me to stand around and do nothing. I get paid to solve problems. That takes time.

[Berkut]

Berkut, your argument has two parts, one very valid, one not so... if you say eating out actually does take more time on average than making lunch, that's a very interesting observation, and I tend to agree with you although, of course, the time employed would vary a lot between persons.

But even if you can't convert your free time in money, that free time has a value for you. It's not that economist assign a monetary value to free time, but rather that they assign a non monetary value to money, i.e. they consider persons as rational beings that try to maximize their satisfaction, and in order to achieve that maximum satisfaction every one assigns a value to reading time time, money, exercise, sleep, etc, etc...  

Rasputins argument is that you do not save any money by making your own lunch. That is patently false. The actual monetary value of my time at 7am is purely a matter of theory - I will not earn another dime if I forgo making my lunch, if anything I might sleep in a little more. That might be valuable to me, but I won't have any more money as a result of it.

And to the extent that my time is valuable, eating out takes a lot more time than eating the lunch I bring. If I eat out, that is generally an hour. Eat at my desk, it is maybe 10 minutes. Then I can spend the other 50 minutes going for a nice walk in the afternoon, and that has a value as well.

His argument is bunk, from start to finish. Eating out costs more money, and take more time.

[Rasputin]

Berkut, your argument has two parts, one very valid, one not so... if you say eating out actually does take more time on average than making lunch, that's a very interesting observation, and I tend to agree with you although, of course, the time employed would vary a lot between persons.

But even if you can't convert your free time in money, that free time has a value for you. It's not that economist assign a monetary value to free time, but rather that they assign a non monetary value to money, i.e. they consider persons as rational beings that try to maximize their satisfaction, and in order to achieve that maximum satisfaction every one assigns a value to reading time time, money, exercise, sleep, etc, etc...   

Rasputins argument is that you do not save any money by making your own lunch. That is patently false. The actual monetary value of my time at 7am is purely a matter of theory - I will not earn another dime if I forgo making my lunch, if anything I might sleep in a little more. That might be valuable to me, but I won't have any more money as a result of it.

And to the extent that my time is valuable, eating out takes a lot more time than eating the lunch I bring. If I eat out, that is generally an hour. Eat at my desk, it is maybe 10 minutes. Then I can spend the other 50 minutes going for a nice walk in the afternoon, and that has a value as well.

His argument is bunk, from start to finish. Eating out costs more money, and take more time.

I weep for you.

[Berkut]

I weep for you.

Join the club.

[Rasputin]

I weep for you.

Join the club.