Cash in wallet by TurboThy (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:24:26 PM EST
They forget to factor in the probability of losing your wallet (say, P(!wallet) = 0.0025) which will counterbalance the "money" lost when spending time to go to the ATM. Also, you might withdraw money from an ATM when you pass it anyway, making the value of time spent withdrawing money go to zero (I can withdraw money way faster than 10 minutes on average).
__
Sommerhus til salg, første række til Kattegat.
He does say by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #2 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:31:15 PM EST
One possible answer is that people are worried about losing the money. A probability p of loss or theft would affect the opportunity cost of holding cash and thus effectively raise the interest rate that enters the model to r+p. But plugging in numbers makes this a hard case to make. To match behavior, such as a biweekly trip to the ATM, you would need people to lose their wallets far more often than they do.
I agree that the time he gives is an overestimate. In my case at least though, his \$10 per day is a big underestimate.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
Depends by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #6 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:10:40 PM EST
I think that the time taken per cashpoint visit is an endogenous variable.

I carry a large float, don't take money out that often, so I can just top up when I'm passing and there's no queue.

When we go the pub at lunchtime though, usually one of the small-float people has to stop off at the cashpoint to get money. Where there's usually a big queue, because all the other small-float people are doing exactly the same thing.

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:21:39 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

[ Parent ]
Never been de-floated so far by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:26:22 PM EST
And even if I get mugged tomorrow, I think I can cope with the financial loss of losing it once every 35 years or so...

[ Parent ]
I've been 'defloated' a couple of times by priestess (4.00 / 2) #36 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:33:53 AM EST
I tend to get out about 50 quid. Mainly coz if I get more out, I spend more. I'm not really in a financial position to spend more than about 50 quid a week on pocket-money stuff. Go that's all I get out.

Pre.........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #60 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:23:27 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

[ Parent ]
Bad Impulse Control by houser2112 (2.00 / 0) #64 Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:19:57 AM EST
I used to work with a guy who had such bad self-diagnosed impulse control that he would take \$10 out of the ATM every day for lunch.

[ Parent ]
anything good about men by MillMan (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:32:49 PM EST
the article/talk is an (unintentional) mediocre take on evolutionary psychology.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

I think he makes some interesting points by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:15:05 PM EST
Especially about the way boys' grades have dropped behind girls' grades. With grade inflation, there's a ceiling on how well you can do. Since boys grades cover a wider range, there's therefore no way for the high-achieving boys to balance out the low achievers; so the average drops below girls'.

[ Parent ]
Cash by hulver (4.00 / 5) #4 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:51:07 PM EST
I don't carry too much cash, because if I have it on me I spend it.

The less I have in my wallet, the more likely I am to think harder about spending it.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

I carry as little cash as possible by komet (4.00 / 4) #5 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 10:59:18 PM EST
because cash goes almost exclusively towards making me a fat bastard. The places that are cash only are kebab stands, bars, sandwich shops, etc. Anywhere that sells sensible stuff takes debit cards.

--
<ni> komet: You are functionally illiterate as regards trashy erotica.
Cash in wallet plus good men by Phage (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:30:04 PM EST
I'm with Hulver and komet. Anything in my wallet will get spent on bad(tm) stuff.
The other thing is that N keeps emptying out sums for school lunches, books, and similar last-minute expenses. Quite often I have to go unexpectedly to the ATM because I've got to work and found that my last tenner has disappeared.

That article was evolutionary biology, but I would have been interested in seeing some citations for the statistical studies he mentions. I'd be interested in following those up.
Why yes, N has some strident friends who patronise me. Why do you ask ?

(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:41:00 PM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

This is why I'd be interested in the stats by Phage (4.00 / 1) #20 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:45:06 AM EST
If true, they'd make very interesting reading.

[ Parent ]
And this differs from what other theory? by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #25 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:44:48 AM EST
If you can't generate a reasonable thesis from existing data then your theory is in trouble. How your theory works with incorrect data is somewhat useful (if it can show the data to be incorrect, this is a good thing. It isn't always possible). If the theory is more plausible than "a witch touched it", "a conspiracy did it", or "this is how behaviour exists in an intelligently designed brain", so much the better.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
I believe Gould by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:49:50 AM EST
was also opposed to the field on what he felt were ethical grounds.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?

[ Parent ]
little cash by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 11:47:22 PM EST
Cash has a bad habit of turning into fried stuff or unsanctioned book purchases. I only really use cash at the weekend anyway. Lunchchecks get me through the week.

Odd by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:21:23 AM EST
Looking through the comments on the blogs, I'm noticing two groups of reasons from the small-floaters:

1. I don't carry much cash because it's easier or just as easy to use a card.

2. I don't carry much cash because cash makes it too easy to spend money.

Unless it's a regional thing, those can't both be true...

[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #14 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:34:05 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by yicky yacky

[ Parent ]
But by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:49:41 AM EST
Surely it's either easier to use a card, or easier to use cash, or both are equally easy.

Some people seem to be saying they avoid cash because it makes spending too easy. Some say they avoid cash because it's easier to use a card. I think one of those groups must be rationalizing.

[ Parent ]
No, it's the type of retailer by Phage (4.00 / 1) #18 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:39:44 AM EST
Purveyors of takeaway foodstuffs, beer, newspapers and similar fritterables rarely take debit cards. When they do, you risk the displeasure of the queue behind you.

For small purchases, cash is still king.

[ Parent ]
But for how long... by DullTrev (4.00 / 1) #26 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:53:44 AM EST
Indeed by Phage (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:13:43 AM EST
But there are competing systems with mobile phones and RFID enabled devices which have proved to popular in the states.
Cash still requires no new infrastructure and enables the shopkeeper to fiddle thir tax manage the cash flow directly and avoid the merchant fees of the card operators. Cash is definitely on the way out, but the road will be a very long one.

[ Parent ]
Long road by DullTrev (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:30:08 AM EST

I certainly hope so. I prefer to pay for things with cash, to be honest - both because I still find it quicker, and secondly because, at heart, I'm a Luddite.

I also know how much fun that (for example) supermarkets have with datamining, think what a bank could do if it knew every single transaction you ever made... And that's before we talk about any outside agencies getting access to the data. Hell, my Oyster card has only ever had cash on it, just to stop it being connected with a person, after I read about the massive leap in the amount of requests the Met were making for travel information from LU.

Possibly the DNA story today has reignited my raging paranoia...

--
DFJ?
[ Parent ]
I don't see that as paranoia. by Phage (4.00 / 1) #32 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:54:48 AM EST
I thought the judge was mis-quoted. He was actually saying that the entire scheme is indefensible unless you make it mandatory for everyone.
Never mind sleep-walking to a police state, it's more of a stampede.

[ Parent ]
exactly by Merekat (4.00 / 2) #33 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:13:01 AM EST
A reductio ad absurdum. Sadly, they are increasingly difficult to pull off as some fool will go 'oh, that is a good idea.'

[ Parent ]
Scary, very scary. by Phage (4.00 / 1) #34 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:25:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
There are two types of people in the world by priestess (4.00 / 1) #38 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:40:44 AM EST
There's me, and then there's everyone else.

Really though, when they say 'easier' they're talking about a psychological 'easy', how easily they can override their psychological barriers to spending money.

Some people find it psychologically easier to spend on a card, some to spend cash. There's no contradiction there.

Pre....
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Easy != easy by gpig (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:13:38 AM EST
This is how I read the replies:

1.

I don't carry much cash because it's easier or just as easy to use a card.

easy -> convenient

I don't carry much cash because it's more convenient or just as convenient to use a card.

2.

I don't carry much cash because cash makes it too easy to spend money.

easy -> tempting

I don't carry much cash because cash makes it too tempting to spend money.

Incidentally, I agree with 2. but not 1. I think having cash in my pocket makes me more likely to spend it -- but I carry lots of cash anyway because I find cards annoying to use. (Though less so now that I don't have to sign anything to use one).
---
`(,   ,') -- eep`

[ Parent ]
But if it's equally easy-convenient by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:19:27 AM EST
But why isn't it equally easy-tempting to spend money with the card in your pocket?

Surely that should be even more tempting, since the cash eventually runs out, but the card stays in your pocket forever.

[ Parent ]
I think it is more tempting for some people by gpig (4.00 / 1) #19 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:44:22 AM EST
but I suspect those in serious credit card debt would probably be too embarrassed to speak up here. Those who are simply more likely to get a curry if they have more than two tenners in their pocket don't feel quite so bad about their problem ....
---
`(,   ,') -- eep`
[ Parent ]
Nope by Phage (4.00 / 2) #21 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:46:22 AM EST
See here.

[ Parent ]
for me by Merekat (4.00 / 1) #24 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:21:16 AM EST
Because I have conditioned myself to use a card only for essentials (supermarket etc.) or large purchases that are not impulse buys, it does not register as available cash for temptation purposes.

I use cash for the smaller, discretionary purchases so that I am more conscious of the act of handing it over.

[ Parent ]
I have a wife and two kids, who seem to know when by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #22 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:58:32 AM EST
I have cash in the wallet, so I tend to carry less than \$10 USD.

We also switched over to a French Press to go with our fresh roasted beans, it makes great coffee.

Just like they can smell fear... by greyrat (4.00 / 1) #27 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:13:19 AM EST
They can smell cash.

And caution: Press brewing is suspected of making a less healthy (popups warning!) brew than drip. But you're right, it tends to taste much better. NB: The fact that the article above was the best I could find leaves a lot of doubt about these health claims.

[ Parent ]
the health of press brewing coffee by lm (4.00 / 2) #29 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:20:32 AM EST
IIRC, the only health risk is for people predisposed to high cholesterol who drink more than three cups of coffee per day. This risk is present for anyone that doesn't use brewing that involves a paper filter. Paper filters remove two different oils that naturally occur in the coffee bean that act as a catalyst and aid the body in retaining cholesterol.

The science behind this claim is pretty well accepted a think. Google for coffee and cholesterol and you'll find quite a bit on the topic.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I have low cholestorel by georgeha (4.00 / 2) #31 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 03:33:14 AM EST
and drink about 1 1/2 mugs a day. I think my other health risks are higher anyhow.

[ Parent ]
Cholesterol by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #46 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:53:23 AM EST
A large percentage of the population is genetically immune to cholesterol problems.

IIRC from bio classes in college, there is one gene that controls cholesterol problems. If you have one version, it is almost impossible to keep cholesterol low on a modern diet. If you have another version, it is almost impossible to raise it to a problematic level. The third version is somewhere in between.

My wife and I have a very similar diet. If anything, I eat worse and exercise less. Yet she always has significantly higher cholesterol.
---

[ Parent ]
That last time I looked into the issue by lm (4.00 / 1) #53 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:25:34 AM EST
The doctors getting published were saying that most people can change their cholesterol levels by about 15% through diet and exercise.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I suspect by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #55 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:34:27 AM EST
That this is one of those misleading averages. For instance, there's no way I can change my cholesterol anywhere near 15 points. It essentially ignores diet and exercise.

My wife, on the other had, has dropped hers by 40+ points in a couple months.

Far too many statistical studies assume people all work the same way.
---

[ Parent ]
That could be the case by lm (4.00 / 1) #58 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:53:34 AM EST
I haven't bothered to keep reading up on the subject once my levels were back in line.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Go instant young man by Bob Abooey (4.00 / 1) #37 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:39:34 AM EST
Instant coffee is almost devoid of cafestol and kahweol, and would also be a good choice for someone only concerned about the cholesterol-raising effects of coffee.

Unless you're all hung up on flavour or something silly like that.

Warmest regards,

How's my blogging: Call me at 209.867.5309 to complain.

[ Parent ]
Diet and exercise by lm (4.00 / 1) #40 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:51:17 AM EST
Works for me. I haven't had an elevated cholesterol level at my annual physical in about two years. I did cut back on the amount of coffee I drink, I'm down to about 20oz per day, but I stopped caring whether paper filtered or not about a year and half ago with no apparent ill effects.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Ohh Nooeeesss! I've switched by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #63 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:44:56 PM EST
to eating eggs (typically 4 large scrambled*) for breakfast and drink coffee by the pot. Does this mean I can't enjoy the yummyness that is press brewing?

Wumpus
I haven't tried it yet, so it is still possible to avoid it.

[ Parent ]
French press by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #62 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 10:49:09 AM EST
I've been using a cafetiere for a few weeks, but I'm not that keen on them. I tend to have two or more cups in the morning, and it means I have to make one huge mug. Also it doesn't taste that nice, presumably because I can't really get the right water temperature.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
wallets by lm (4.00 / 2) #23 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 01:59:28 AM EST
As mentioned above there is the unconsidered increase in opportunity cost due to loss or theft.

But there is also the false assumption that your time is worth money. Time is only worth money if you can sell the time. There is not necessarily an opportunity cost to the time spent waiting to get cash.

And ten minutes a day to visit the ATM? I must be spoiled, it takes me five minutes on busy day and usually only two minutes at most.

The model also assumes that most people have a constant spend rate which I don't think is true. Most people have a spend rate that approaches the available amount of cash in their wallet. And even if the spend rate doesn't approach all available cash, the model doesn't take into consideration the amount of time necessary in calculating how much money one can spend. If a person budget's X amount of money per week to spend, and gets that amount out of cash out of the bank, no further calculations must be made. But if a person gets out four months of cash to carry around for a third of the year, then calculation must come prior to almost every transaction lest one net stay within the budget.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
Examples by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #35 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:31:09 AM EST
The original example is typical economics: It's completely unrealistic, yet put forth to prove something. In my case, there's an ATM roughly on the way to where I usually go to lunch and where I usually walk to and from work.

It ignores the "cash-back" option at many stores that is always fee-less and always has no time cost (because you are there already.) I tend to get cash on the weekends at the grocery store and I tend to get enough for lunches during the week. (Though I plan on stopping that as it is making me fat.)

The example also appears to ignore cash withdrawal limits at ATMs.

Seems to me that how much money you should *carry* in your wallet should always be exactly what you need in a day as that gives the lowest risk due to stolen/lost wallets. (Irrespective of how often you withdraw cash from the ATM.) Since you can't know this, it ends up being a balancing of how much you are willing to risk vs. the random needs you may encounter. I suspect this is much closer to what people actually carry then this model.

The other thing that these economists seem to have completely ignored is that any cash in a wallet is not cash in bank. Most people pay their mortgages, car payments, etc. with cash in the bank. Anyone living paycheck to paycheck is not going to be able to just withdraw \$1200 from the ATM to sit around in their wallet even if it did make sense.
---

[ Parent ]
Hmmm by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #39 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:47:43 AM EST
I don't think it was put forward to prove anything. The original post was an open-ended question. The Mankiw post was an aknowledgment of an unsolved puzzle.

I think he overestimates the time taken to visit the cashpoint, but he underestimates the amount of money spent (\$10 per day?) so it probably averages out.

The other thing is that human behaviour tends to be influenced by cognitive biases. One of those is that people tend to be over-influenced by unlikely, high-impact events. For instance, someone might be worried about flying in case his airliner is blown up by terrorists, but still drive home after three beers talking on his cellphone.

Being mugged or losing your wallet is a rare, fairly high-impact event. So, you would expect normal, non-rational human beings to attach far too much weight to that in their decision about how much money to carry.

[ Parent ]
money by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #41 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:55:22 AM EST
I spend too much because I eat out at lunch. If I didn't eat out at lunch, I'd spend much less than \$10/day.

Like a lot of economic problems, I suspect that they need to talk to some psychologists about the issue. The root problem with economics is that it assumes rational actors.
---

[ Parent ]
It's not so much that it assumes rational actors by lm (4.00 / 2) #43 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:58:52 AM EST
It's that it also assumes a certain definition of rationality that makes the Ayn Rands of the world very happy but can be disputed on many grounds.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Assuming rational actors by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #48 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:18:06 AM EST
I don't think that's necessarily true. If you look at the theory of the relationship between inflation and unemployment, for instance, that specifically relies on people being irrational. (If their wages are being reduced in real terms but not nominal terms, they will accept lower wages, allowing more of them to be employed.)

It's more a question of to what degree, in what circumstances, and to what extent people are rational. If an inflationary period continues for long enough, people tend to work it out and demand matching pay rises, so the effect diminishes.

Regarding daily spending, from the comments I suspect there might be a significant difference between married and single people. Or maybe your bars are just cheaper...

[ Parent ]
Generalization by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #54 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:28:06 AM EST
I believe that's assuming too much predictability in people's behavior. A lot may depend on things like what the news media decides to talk about, etc. Economists talk about "consumer confidence", but don't seem to pursue the psychological mechanisms behind confidence, or the lack thereof.

For instance, the idea of "what wages people will accept" is coldly rational and pretty much divorced from the way people work. People don't generally go around deciding how much they will work for. More often, they will try to get what they can when changing jobs and as they see the value of their salary erode, they make pretty complex psychological decisions about when to jump ship and/or demand a raise. Both things include massive elements of psychology in terms of self-confidence, social rules, etc.

Oh, and married people just don't go to bars as much.
---

[ Parent ]
Not always so rare by lm (2.00 / 0) #42 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 04:56:49 AM EST
In some necks of the wood it isn't all that rare for people to carry around `mugging money' because if they don't have any cash when mugged, they get beat up.

But no matter how rare, it is a reasonable thing to be concerned about if one can't afford to lose the money. If part of that daily amount was for bus fare for a low income individual, then losing that money for a full one third of the year would be catastrophic. In such a case, it would be very rational to place a higher value on keeping the money safe in the bank.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
You don't live in Cleveburgh by sasquatchan (4.00 / 1) #44 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:11:35 AM EST
but speak like one who has..

[ Parent ]
Well by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #49 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:23:40 AM EST
Half of the poll votes here are for under £20/\$40, and the comments on the econoblogs have lots of low-floaters too. I don't think either demographic is particularly deprived.

I don't think I follow your argument about the "false assumption that your time is worth money". Your time has to be worth something to you. Even if you can't spend the five minutes working, you can spend the five minutes doing something else more pleasant or more useful. Therefore it has some kind of value that you're sacrificing.

Judging by the comments, quite a few people seem to agree that they spend more if they have more cash though. Surprises me as I think I'm more likely to spend more if it's on the card.

[ Parent ]
I don't dispute that time is worth something by lm (4.00 / 1) #50 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:36:47 AM EST
My dispute is whether or not this something is properly measured in dollars except for when that time is sold. In most cases, I'd argue that doing the comparison that way is highly irrational.

Also note that as worded, your assertion is not necessarily true, ``Even if you can't spend the five minutes working, you can spend the five minutes doing something else more pleasant or more useful.''

Maybe, maybe not, depending on how that five minutes fits into one's schedule. While I doubt that, in the abstract, you find many people that wouldn't rather do something else with that five minutes, I think the set of people that have lives structured in such a way that that particular five minutes is significant is rather small.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Still don't really see it by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #51 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:47:59 AM EST
Even if you have to go out anyway, if you can cut 5 minutes out of your trip, you can come back 5 minutes earlier and spend 5 more minutes reading, watching TV, playing with your kids or whatever you find a valuable use of your time.

So, a very-small-float habit does cost you something, even if it's just time with your kids. The size of your float ought to reflect that.

[ Parent ]
Sometimes by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #52 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:21:11 AM EST
It's nice to have five minutes of mindless task time to clear the head.
---
[ Parent ]
well, let's look at it by lm (4.00 / 1) #57 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 07:50:13 AM EST
Situation one: a person stops at the ATM on their lunchbreak. Can they go home from work earlier? Not in most shops. Can they get to work later? Again, not in most shops. At best they get five more minutes sitting at the lunch counter or they can expand their lunch plan to include places that have a five minute longer wait. It isn't clear to me that five more minutes has much value for most rational agents in this circumstance.

Situation two: a person stops at the ATM everyday on their way into the job. If this person no longer does this, they can leave for work five minutes later in the morning. More time with the kids? No, the kids have left for school half an hour before the agent in question has to go to work. Do they get to sleep five more minutes? Perhaps. But the value of a mere five minutes of sleep isn't necessarily that much. I doubt most people would go to bed five minutes later. So in the case of a signifantly sleep-deprived individual, it may have a large value, but for most people? I doubt it.

Lastly, as mentioned before, you're still arguing that the value of time can be represented in money. ``The size of your float ought to reflect that.'' I don't think the value of time is transitive to money except for where it is clear that you can trade the time for money. Further, I don't think it is clear that the value of five minutes is transitive across different times of the day except for where it is clear that they are convertible. If skipping the ATM visit always meant that one could leave work five minutes early, then I'd agree with you. I just don't think it does in most cases.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Don't really see either of those by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #59 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:10:32 AM EST
On a weekday morning, for me an extra five minutes of snooze time is probably worth about 20 minutes later on. Maybe that's just me... but on weekends, I don't see many people rushing out early to go to the cashpoint.

Even on a lunchbreak, even if you've got a fixed amount of time to take, don't see why you can't read a paper in the break room or feed the ducks in the park or do something more fun.

Regarding the representation of time to money: as I said even if you can't directly convert those time slots to money, it still has value. Well, I call it value: economists would call it utility. Kind of the whole point of economics is that people attach different utility values to things: that's why people exchange goods, labour and services with other people. And since you can increase or reduce those particular time slots by carrying different amounts of money, you need to balance that utility against money in your decision of what float to carry.

[ Parent ]
You can do those other things by lm (4.00 / 1) #61 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 09:29:54 AM EST
But that is irrelevant. Your position is that a discrete amount of those those things from a single point in time will have significantly greater value than that same amount of time spent in the ATM queue to most people. It's not clear to me that this is the case.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Cash: \$0 - ~\$200 by theboz (4.00 / 1) #45 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 05:33:10 AM EST
Right now I have over \$200, but that's because we went to a strip club for lunch last Friday and it was really, really, super-lame. There were about 50 guys to each girl, and most of the girls were drugged or ugly, even in the bad lighting. Other than drinks, I spent a total of \$1. I was expecting to buy a few \$20 private dances for a friend that was leaving the company, but we never found a good girl to do it.

So for now, I have a lot of money in my wallet.
- - - - -
That's what I always say about you, boz, you have a good memory for random facts about pussy. -- joh3n

"Cell" is OK by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #47 Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:04:12 AM EST
It felt a bit aimless. Plus I can't remember a thing about it only a few months after reading it, which isn't a good sign.

"World War Z: an Oral History of the Zombie War" is a much better zombie novel. Pacy, well thought-out and lots of fun, with comedy and horror in equal measures. The author seems to be pushing some sort of nebulous political agenda, but it doesn't get in the way.

--------