Kat said,
A lot about asking questions in order to develop a good set of priorities
for one's life and then acting on those priorities. I cut them because I
think they were reasonable, not because they weren't worth discussing. I
would like to focus in on what I think is a bit of a misunderstanding.
>
> When you say "cost-benefit analysis", John, you immediately put my back
> up, because all too often cost-benefit analysis means *skipping* all the
> rambling stuff I've been describing above and starting at the lower
> levels. It doesn't mean it's a *less important* level. Goals without
> implementations (which seems to personify a lot of the environmentalist
> movement) are nice, but not particularly useful. However,
> implementations- "I want to make more money"- without goals are useful,
> but usually not very nice, and often they can damage your overall *goal*,
> making them actually counterproductive. Work, but make-work, time-filler,
> just "scraping by" without actually approaching the actual goal.
>
> This is what I think about when you say "cost-benefit analysis". I think
> what you *mean* is a rational method of balancing the pluses (as defined
> by the goal) of a particular action against the minuses, which I can in
> fact agree with. However, what you tend to *give* me is a straight $$
> value of this vs. that, which as far as I'm concerned is avoiding the
> issue. Money in and of itself is nothing but pretty paper; its only real
> value is in how it advances the goal of a person or a group of people.
>
Kat, I find it amazing that most of the people on the list do not take the
totality of what John has said in responding to him. He deliberately took a
lower paying job in government because, IIRC, he felt an obligation to serve
people, felt like he could do some good, and enjoyed the work there more
than work in the private sector.
Given that, one should assume that John has a broader idea of cost-benefit
analysis. Let me make some guesses about him, and see if I'm right.
John decided against seeking work at a significantly higher salary in the
private sector. However, if some company absolutely had to have him work
for them and offered him 2 million per year with a 3 year guarantee to work
for them, he probably would take it. However, if that company were an
abortion clinic and his job was to market abortions in order double the
number of abortions per year in the US, he would probably turn down the 2
million per year. (Please, this isn't an attempt to start an abortion
thread...it is just giving a hypothetical example that illustrates
cost/benefit analysis.)
This analysis can be used after priorities have been decided or as a tool
for exploring those priorities. I would not want to go back to my old
company, I'm having far too much fun now. But, if they offer me $2 million
per year, or if they offer me my old salary after I lost all my contracts
and I've been unemployed for 2 years with no other prospects, I'd probably
say yes.
I do cost/benefit analysis with the lives and well being of my children. I
let my daughter drive a car, even though I know that there is some risk
involved. When the kids were little, after warning them about safety, I let
them play at friends houses. I let my daughter travel by herself to a music
camp.
In all of these, I weighed the potential horrific costs she and we would pay
vs. the benefits she would gain by these experiences. In hindsight, I think
that letting my children take these risks was the right thing to do, it
helped them grow. But, I realized then as I do now, that I was deliberately
weighing a benefit higher than the risk to my child's life.
So, one certainly should have a much broader understanding of both costs and
benefits than just income and spending. I understand why John, as an
economist, tries to use a measure like money, for our willingness to do
things. In many cases, it is helpful. I don't think money can always be
used as a measure in a cost/benefit analysis, but it often can be utilized.
Dan M.
