Comment

Comment by ChuckMcM

That is exactly correct. So a money example;

Winter's coming and you need a coat, you don't have much money and so you buy the cheap coat that costs $40 instead of the expensive coat that costs $60, 2/3rds through winter your coat fails and you buy another cheap coat for $40. You're out $80 for the winter vs being out $60.

A time example works similarly, when time is scarce you choose not to invest enough time into something (cleaning, fixing something, reading, whatever) and by making that choice, over a wider period you end up spending more time on this task because you're making up for not doing enough when you could have.

For me the trigger is anytime I think "I should do <x> but I don't have enough <y> to do it, correctly but I can get by using only a small amount of <y> if I do it this other way." That is a scarcity based decision not a reasoned one.

The deal for me is to look at the situation with a wider lens to see what the longer term resource requirement is and working from that. It does result in what can feel like a "riskier" choice, but when I track those choices I find making the non-scarcity driven decision is usually the better choice.

parent ChuckMcM 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton