Print

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

[wierd]

Let's assume that there is a credit card bill from the device, which dings me the 3$, instead of it being an increase of electrical cost.

Every period, I pay 3$ straight up in licensing.  I get 1$ in reimbursement. I *LOSE* 2$ per period.


If however, the cost is in electrical operating costs, that cost is fungible across the building. I pay .75$ per period, and get reimbursed 1$ per period. I SAVE .25$


It makes all the difference in the universe.

[Reelya]

I didn't ever say that the $3 was off the power bill. it just said it's the cost to the owner of the widget, which is in your room, and you can't interact with the other building tenants. it's the entire point of the question.

now you're basically making up your own constraints, such as saying the $3 cost of the widget can be taken off the power bill. e.g. you're making up your own strawman versions to answer.

[wierd]

You never specified. You just said

It costs 3$ per period to run.

You did not specify that it was not electricity, and all other costs were electrical costs.
It's called "Literary context" Reelya.  You really DO need to specify that it is NOT an electrical cost for operating the device.

[Reelya]

"cost $3 to run" is pretty clear. Which word isn't clear?

The whole point was that it costs $3 to run, but saves $4 in electricity. It's entirely illogical to assume that the $3 is also electricity. the only connection with electricity is that there's electricity also mentioned in the question.

[smjjames]

I THINK I see the problem... Are we talking about paying an equal fraction (25% in this case), then wouldn't the share be unchanged regardless of how much you save? Because if you save some, that lowers the bill for everybody and changes the amount everybody pays. I doubt the electricity bill is going to be an unchanging flat fee.

Or am I failing the argument?

Edit: three replies, slow to peck type on iPad.....

[wierd]

Reelya, you CANNOT be this dense.  You really cannot.  I know better.


.75 * 4 = 3

The cost of operating the device is 3.  That cost still exists, and is still the full 3.  It has (being an electrical cost), been distributed across the pool of tenants, resulting in a cost (to US) of .75 cents.


This is NOT rocket science.  Again, CONTEXT MATTERS.

[Maximum Spin]

That part that wasn't clear was whether that $3 is also distributed among the tenants. I understood that you meant for it not to be, but yes, you really should've specified that, instead of assuming other people would interpret the ambiguity the same way you do. Anyway, the correct rational solution to your problem is "stop sharing your utility bills with assholes".

[smjjames]

If the overall cost goes down, don't we and everybody else get a savings?

[Reelya]

go look at my "power saving lightbulb" example for clarification there.

- 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

The numbers work out identical to the original example. You spent $30 for the bulb, but saved $10 off your own electric bills, over 10 bills. So your net economic position is worse - you made an irrational decision.

Basically, nobody is better off individually if they put one of these bulbs in their own room. But if everyone gets one, everyone is both individually and collectively better off. The point here, is that individual rational decisions don't necessarily add up to collective best outcomes.

[wierd]

If the cost to operate is in the form of increased electrical use in my apartment, and not in some other form, then yes. All tenants will get a reduction in their power bills as a result of our installation of the device. In the originally proposed case, and not the bait and switch above, all tenants save .25$ per period if the bill is an increased electrical cost.

[Maximum Spin]

I really want to stress that it is your own fault that you're not communicating clearly enough, Reelya.

[smjjames]

Lasting 10 months sounds like a pretty crappy bulb to be honest, unless we're talking about a billing period of one year.

[Reelya]

There was no bait and switch.

I specified that it was a widget that you put in your room. Your personal room. and that you can't interact with the other tenants.

A widget is a physical object. And I said you have to pay money to run it, but it saves electricity. clearly, the money isn't also electricity because that wouldn't make any sense.

e.g. if I said you could buy 10 apples for $3 would you say that the $3 was also apples?

[Maximum Spin]

A widget is a physical object. And I said you have to pay money to run it, but it saves electricity.

Do you really not get that people are assuming the cost to run it is a utility cost, such as electricity?

Which, frankly, is perfectly sensible since you never specified otherwise and what kind of device have you ever seen that you have to pay money to run directly in your own home? Is this some kind of coin-op generator? Does it turn pennies into electricity?

e.g. if I said you could buy 10 apples for $3 would you say that the $3 was also apples?

. . .
Okay, seriously, are you 12?

[smjjames]

Which saves electricity for EVERYBODY because it affects the bill that everybody pays a part of.....