Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Okay, look, if I buy a lightbulb for one dollar, is it going to show up on my bill as an extra dollar? Doubt it, which is the problem with the unspecified cost separate from the utility bill.

[Reelya]

Who's $3 would you spend if you make a personal decision to put a thing in your room, and you don't have interaction with the other people?

What does that have to do with the bill?? It'll matter the first bill, but not the next...

I stated in the OP that the cost to run the widget was $3. The verb "run" clearly indicates an ongoing cost, instead of a one-off purchasing cost.

I think we're going in circles here. The point is, it was always mentioned as "cost to run" and that you saves $1 per bill, but costs $3.

[wierd]

Consuming 3$ worth of electricity, exactly satisfies that requirement. It costs 3$ worth of electricity, which costs 3$, to run the device.

[Reelya]

The cost was mentioned as being separate from the bill however. I mentioned the amount it affected the bill then immediately said "but you spend $3" which implies that the $3 isn't from the electric bill.

[smjjames]

The cost was mentioned as being separate from the bill however.

And what does that mean exactly? I know it seems arbritrary, but its vital for the math. Also, if 3 dollars isnt the utility cost, then what is it?

[Reelya]

Personal cost. The cost was linked to the decision in the OP, and it was pretty clear that you had to make that choice yourself.

the maths itself is pretty simple. A device in your room costs you (only you) $3 per bill (could be an e.g. $30 item that lasts 10 bills). it saves $4 in power per bill, the bill is split 4 ways.

You can do the math there, and note that if any one person does this, they will personally be worse off. But if everyone does it, each person will be individually better off, as well as collectively. It's an important fact to understand about human decision making.

[wierd]

No, you are IMPLYING that, but again, ALL OTHER COSTS ARE IN THE FORM OF METERED USE.

Again, this is ESPECIALLY true, given that the counter-widget operates in this fashion.

The rational thing to think, given the context, is that the device's cost is in the form of metered use, and somehow you are being specially billed, in contradiction of the split bill rule.

Again, we are back to 2 choices.

Either this is a FALSE COMPARISON,

OR

It is a CONTRADICTION.

[smjjames]

Then whats the personal cost of the bitcoin miner since that isnt mentioned, only the cost on the utility bill.

My logic agrees with weird.

[Maximum Spin]

I hate to be the one to say this, but all of you deserve this argument.

[wierd]

lol

[smjjames]

-snips and moves down a post-

[Reelya]

Let me explain the bitcoin mining.

If each "unit" of bitcoin mining costs $4 in power and generates $3 worth of coins, and you are splitting power bills 4 ways then you can do the math on that.

Say i run 1 "unit" of mining. I get $3 worth of coins. Each person loses $1 in additional power costs. So I made a personal profit of $2.

So doing it was a good idea according to rational actor economic theory. Then, everyone does it over and over until we're all mining like mad, because if any one person decreases their own mining, they see a loss of money. Based on point decisions, it's never a good idea to cut the mining.

~~~

BTW what's "magic" about this? I explained how this is a REAL example with the power-saving light bulb example. The math and logic is exactly the same as the original example except that it just says "widget" instead of "light bulb".

[smjjames]

Lemme grab your thought experiment and wrangle it

If you get a widget that has an opportunity cost of 3 and an utility cost of 2

Vs

If you get a widget with an opportunity cost of 10 and a utility cost of 4, but it churns out 3 units of magicmoney for every 4 utility cost?

NOW how does the math work out? Still assuming the same bill pay arrangement as the original.

[Reelya]

What issue exactly do you have with this example:

- shared bills split 4 ways
- personal rooms
- you can buy a nice $30 energy-saver light-bulb for your room, that lasts 10 billing periods.
- the $30 bulb saves $4 per bill, or $40 over it's lifetime

It's the same equation as the original one

And the example with bitcoins is realistic too, you can in fact rip your housemates off by mining bitcoins at a loss in terms of electricity prices.

i'm just pointing out these are not fake examples, they're real examples of how costs are spread out in real world scenarios. Basically, people using too much power because of sharing bills really happens, it's not make-believe. When a bill is shared, your personal incentives to seek saving-behaviours are reduced because the costs to the individual to do that could exceed how much they personally save on the bill, even if the costs of the action are less than the total saving.

[smjjames]

I was trying to make a point regarding the inclusion/exclusion of important data.

I dont have an issue with the example you gave just now, other than the fact that 10 months is a crappy lifespan for a modern lightbulb, or even an LED. Unless the billing period is one year.