suomalainen wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:43 am
Diminishing marginal returns on time saved / spent doing other things?
I don't know about it. I can think of plenty of things I'd rather do. Even considering one tends to do 'chores' during the least productive time of the day (i.e. being already 'tired' both physically and mentally, since they don't require one's 100% attention/energy), there are still so many better ways to spend time when tired. One could watch all the movies nominated to the academy award for the best movie since it's been introduced (think Dragline suggested something similar). Or read all the 'classics' of world literature. Or go for an evening walk along the beach. Beats hoovering any time.
I agree that diminishing returns apply to *almost* everything. But to life itself, when one is in it's prime?
BRUTE wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:24 pm
sometimes, brute would rather. but even though brute's place comes equipped with a dish washer, he has never used it. he finds a little bit of dish washing meditative.
brute likes the "flow" theory of money and lifetime spent lately. it's not about reducing everything to the shortest possible amount of time, it's about reducing the time spent doing what brute doesn't like doing, and increasing the time spent doing things he enjoys. doing the dishes is in the latter category.
Are we not talking about the same thing then with the only difference being our lists of '0 value, not like doing' are different?
jacob wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:04 am
It does make sense from a renaissance viewpoint. What doesn't make sense is to get a full-time job as a dishwasher/lawn mower. Without knowing what goes into maintaining/organizing a lawn or one's cooking or dinner plates, the system begins to change. For example, [smart] people who hate doing dishes figure out a way to cook that involves less dishes. This has knock-on effects like minimalism, less complicated diet (fewer utensils), less shopping, ... if dish washing was outsources, no effort would have been spent on systems design because the waste had no personal cost.
Yes, but... the system can only be optimised to a point. Eating the same, simple meal all the time in order to save time cooking/cleaning would be, for many people, past the point of diminishing returns and well into the negative returns territory. At the end of the day, there will still be *a time* required to maintain one's living quarters in order, no matter how well optimised the system is. If *money is not a problem*, it then becomes a question of either spending one's valuable life energy on '0 value, not like doing' tasks vs. tapping into practically unlimited resource* which allows one to direct this life energy towards something from 'some value, different degrees of like doing' pool.
*where the additional expense likely won't have any detrimental effect on one's finances with >99% probability
jacob wrote: ↑Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:04 am
Outsourcing only makes sense for specialists (comparative advantage) in environments where the only "information" in the system is the dollar cost/market price.
There's a difference between having a skill and using a skill. One might have a skill of soap making, but still opting for a market solution as being orders of magnitude more optimal when considering both time and money. I guess what I'm trying to (unsuccessfully) communicate is that, although there's massive value in having a well-optimised system, there's also *life beyond the system* where one can, for example, tap into (practically unlimited) resources the system helped one to gather in order to save life energy. Maybe we are arguing about values: the value of living *true* to one's system vs. the value of optimising/preserving time/life energy. Or living *for* the system vs. the system being a *tool* to reach specific goals.