The value of removing discomfort

[zbigi]

I started wondering how much comfort can/should be valued. Let's say you can remove some discomfort from your life at a price of $X. The basic logic would be to weight it against the discomfort of having to work to earn that $X, and see which discomfort is greater. BUT - here comes ERE/Renaissance Man philosophy, which advocates for building out multiple skills and against covering all your needs solely with proceeds from a high-paying job.

The problem with discomfort removal vs ERE is that often it does not teach us any new skill, except maybe the skill of discomfort endurance. Let's take an example of upgrading a train ticket to 1st class. It will remove the discomfort of sitting in too small a chair in 2nd class (I'm a big guy), at the cost of extra $10. Would you pay that extra $10 for it? Why/why not?

[7Wannabe5]

I would not pay the extra $10 unless I feared that my ass had become so large it might intrude upon space of fellow passenger.

OTOH, generally I would value the removal of discomfort on the degree of its persistence. Even extreme discomfort -> pain is tolerable to me if its length of duration is known and limited. For instance, I chose to give birth for the second time without any use of pain killers in order to save a lot of money on my hospitalization costs by using the Nurse-Midwifes instead of Ob-Gyn. But, I am currently willing to work full-time for up to an extra 3 years in order to pay to remediate the constant chronic pain/discomfort I am suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. Oddly, this in part due to the fact that I can't even appreciate the contrast between chosen discomfort/work and chosen pleasure/relaxation when I am chronically, intermittently, somewhat unpredictably likely to be uncomfortable. For instance, I can't count on the simple pleasure to be derived from enjoying a warm bowl of soup after a long hike in the cold woods, because my GI problems are likely to interfere with both exertion and relaxation. So, if needful, I will spend roughly $40,000, maybe more, to vanquish this particular form of discomfort.

[ducknald_don]

I think most people here would spend an extra $10 on a pair of boots that fit properly and are more comfortable. I don't see a huge difference between that and a train ticket.

On the other hand I don't use the train much, my transport priorities start with walking and cycling.

[jacob]

The problem with discomfort removal vs ERE is that often it does not teach us any new skill, except maybe the skill of discomfort endurance. Let's take an example of upgrading a train ticket to 1st class. It will remove the discomfort of sitting in too small a chair in 2nd class (I'm a big guy), at the cost of extra $10. Would you pay that extra $10 for it? Why/why not?

For WL6 adding whichever skill can also be evaluated at the marginal cost.

Simplified example (without loss of generality),
time to learn to patch a bicycle tire: 30 minutes.
time to patch a tire: 10 minutes.
cost of patch: $0.25
cost of bicycle shop patching the tire (they usually just replace it with a new one): $15
frequency of fixing flats. 2/year?

Asymptotic value of DIY patching skill: ~$90/hr or $180/year.

For WL7 skills combine to unlock new skills or opportunities. For example, WL6 gets supplies to DIY laundry powder. WL7 realizes they can do all sorts of home chemistry (soap, window cleaner, toilet bombs, ...) including new recipes, etc. and thus completely separating (modularizing) that aspect of their economy from the market.

[basuragomi]

Avoidance value = ln((RMS discomfort)^(duration/k)), where k = age*(1-wealth percentile)/wheaton level (AKA the "affluenza factor")

Modified after Bigglesworth et al (2013)

[7Wannabe5]

@basuragomi:

That seems about right.

What's the Wheaton level of a human who can concoct their own advanced pharmaceuticals in off-grid kitchen?

[GandK]

I wouldn't know what a scientific study of the subject would conceivably be titled, but I strongly suspect that for the vast majority of humanity, whenever one removes Discomfort A, it is not long at all until one's mind turns to Discomfort B (actual pain notwithstanding). One could conceivably spend one's entire life (and fortune) focused on removing progressively more minor negative stimuli... and if you spend any time at all around people over age 70, you'll have met a few who have done this. Their whole day is ruined if the paper comes late.

If happiness is the goal here, pursuing the good and the constructive ought to yield better results.

[jacob]

On the gripping hand... if removing discomfort were to be felt and pursued beyond the "comfort and safety of 'friends and family'" the world would look a lot differently.

[Scott 2]

Faced with the train example, my choice was to travel off peak and sit at the far end of the train. There would usually be spare capacity, meaning an empty seat next to me and plenty of room. Failing that, at $10 - I'd pay for the upgraded seats every time. That's a cheap price to have more energy at my destination.


More generically:

1. If the discomfort offers feedback into an anti-fragile system (ie exercise) removing it sacrifices resilience. Provided my system can absorb the impact, I'd try to keep it.

2. If removing the discomfort increases work capacity (a comfortable bed for better sleep?), the improvement is hard to over-value. I'll usually go for it. Removing overhead usually pays great returns.

3. If the change will be lost to hedonic adaptation (higher thread count sheets? 18+ year scotch?), it's generally not worth the bother. I might give it a couple tries for the life experience, then settle a little earlier on the curve of diminishing returns.

It can be hard to identify which category a discomfort belongs to. As an example - I could place raising the thermostat in winter under 1, 2, or 3. Depends on the person and situation.

[7Wannabe5]

On the gripping hand... if removing discomfort were to be felt and pursued beyond the "comfort and safety of 'friends and family'" the world would look a lot differently.

I don't think "family and friends" is the boundary as much as simple distance or unfamiliarity compounded by positive feedback loop which increases or adds new forms of discomfort if/when distance is reduced or familiarity is increased. For instance, my activity of teaching science/math to poor girls has the potential to decrease discomfort on 3 levels; by providing me with better insurance and more wages to treat my inflammatory bowel disease, by improving the skills and lifestyle of the girls (and boys), and by providing compounding improvements to global climate change by influence on early pregnancy rates. OTOH, the activity increases my discomfort by exposing me to somewhat violent, very stressful environment.

OTOH, I have no control over how those who profit from the development/provision of expensive pharmaceuticals will spend the $$$ I funnel their way. Hopefully, they are all affluent/educated enough to simply donate their profits to the climate change remediation cause of their choosing vs. construction of McMansion and burning of jet fuel.

[IlliniDave]

Some people are wired so that spending money is the most uncomfortable act of all. I've mentioned the story of my aunt who was dug in and determined to refuse a medication (that she is doing quite well on, as it turns out) because, although she could afford it "easily", she's wired so that she would rather die sooner than spend $2,000/month (iirc) on a prescription. Fortunately the $2,000 month (reduced from $6,000/month by insurance) didn't reflect an out-of-pocket max that dropped it to $500-$600/month effectively.

To me the "make/buy" decision space has been focused on time since that is the most valuable commodity of all. If I can solve a $150 problem on my own in an hour, DIY is a no-brainer. E.g., I recently changed out the float valve on a toilet, whereas once a plumber crosses your threshold you've basically spent at least $175.

If the same problem would me take 8 hours to correct and is not something I enjoy or have aptitude at, I'm likely to throw money at it. If it is something I enjoy it becomes more complicated. If I have a hankering to eat walleye I could spend the 8 hours on the water (with a ~67% chance of success) at a cost of about $125 (given the state of how equipped I am at the moment), or maybe $30 with a ~10% chance of success to fish from a river bank somewhere, versus going to the grocery (an option since I am not back in the northern Midwest) and pay about $15 for a pound of it already filleted with a 100% probability of success. 9/10 times I'll grab my pole and head out to the water. The best times to fish for them are often the most miserable times to be out chasing them (very early spring and late fall around here), so it often results in adding additional discomfort.

If I go further and start weighing second order effects, shopping at the grocery supports First Nation groups in Canada (afaik, the only people allowed to harvest walleye commercially) but who use gill nets which kill a lot of critters that aren't walleye. Fishing myself has a lot of benefits to me personally, but involves consumption that makes the "free" fish not a very good bargain.

What it boils down to in this tortured example is that "fishing" is higher in my value hierarchy than putting fish on the table. I know people for whom tinkering with small engines, gardening, cooking, etc., are "fishing"; and a working lawnmower, a quart of fresh strawberries, or an elegant meal, are "fish on the table". I suppose my rule-of-thumb is I use money to prevent degrading the quality of time. As winter creeps up, I have no problem wearing layers of clothing around the house, but if my hands are too cold to comfortably play my guitar the thermostat gets adjusted.

[Married2aSwabian]

I think the older one gets, the more challenging it can be to tolerate discomforts, but this is also partially in one’s head. The discomfort, pain, etc. is one thing - the “suffering” we perceive is in the mind.

DW and i like Camping. We tent camp. When we tell others our age that we still sleep in a sleeping bag on the ground, they wince. Recently, in order to remove some discomfort associated with sleeping on a thin backpacking pad, I spent $70 on a 3” thick twin mattress topper to use in tent. Best sleep ever - anywhere! A used RV would cost somewhere between $20k and $60k, so I rationalized it that way.

Another example is health related. I had some hip pain that I first thought to be muscle stiffness and some cartilage loss at around age 45. At 48 I was told I have osteoarthritis in that hip! I did as much PT, combined with swimming and keeping weight low as possible, but at 52, I had to get a new hip. Words cannot describe the improvement in quality of life thereafter. No more pain. Was it priceless? I don’t know, but it was worth a hell of a lot more than our $1500 deductible at the time!

Some examples like hip replacement are a little like the boiling frog, I think. We just have to figure out when to jump out.

[basuragomi]

@7Wannabe5: I'd say the average meth cook is probably around a WL1, but the Mexican fentanyl cooks/Colombian cocaine processors are probably a bit higher due to a more nomadic lifestyle. Afghani and Karen opium growers are probably way up there as it's an integrated part of subsistence agriculture in general. The Breaking Bad characters are at like a negative WL.

[zbigi]

Faced with the train example, my choice was to travel off peak and sit at the far end of the train. There would usually be spare capacity, meaning an empty seat next to me and plenty of room. Failing that, at $10 - I'd pay for the upgraded seats every time. That's a cheap price to have more energy at my destination.

That's exactly what I did - paid the extra $10 so that the trip (6 hours by train) would cost me less energy in what was an already a busy week.
However, I see that as anti-ERE. The $10 bucks for a better seat is the beginning of slippery slope that ends with cleaning services, eating out every day, expensive entertainment ("The fun and relaxation from it increases my functioning") etc. Where does one draw the line? Using pure math (in terms of extra hours of work needed) doesn't make that much sense for people with higher salaries, because all these costs are relatively small and don't add that much to time till retirement.
I'm guessing the conclusion could be that ERE is less targeted at people like you or me (and more at people on median salaries) - for us, those little things don't have much of an impact and fretting over them is more of a hobby/lifestyle thing. Like Jacob wrote somewhere, the higher-income people can be much less strict with their money/choices and still arrive at FI/RE in a good time.

[Scott 2]

I think it's worth pointing out the goal of ERE is not FI/RE. Rather, those are side effects of the lifestyle - a natural outcome of increasing resilience while reducing ecological impact.

So within the ERE context, comparative advantage offered by a high income is given limited consideration. ERE can still apply to a high earner. The pure math becomes secondary to broader philosophical considerations. Should an able bodied person depend upon a house cleaner? What is the impact of daily eating out on one's resilience? Within that context, answers feel obvious.

IMO this highlights a direct conflict between ERE (the ultimate generalist) and life as a highly specialized professional. While it may be possible to find synergies (live simply so cleaning is trivial), often an ERE strategy will directly impair specialist performance. The trade-off is by design, part of embracing life as a broad generalist.


In practice, these factors prevented me from going "full" ERE. In some cases, I am mitigating limitations developed through decades of specialization. In others, my taste of luxury was simply too good. I'm hooked on the lack of discomfort, unwilling to pare back my hedonic adaptation.

[WFJ]

I wouldn't know what a scientific study of the subject would conceivably be titled, but I strongly suspect that for the vast majority of humanity, whenever one removes Discomfort A, it is not long at all until one's mind turns to Discomfort B (actual pain notwithstanding). One could conceivably spend one's entire life (and fortune) focused on removing progressively more minor negative stimuli... and if you spend any time at all around people over age 70, you'll have met a few who have done this. Their whole day is ruined if the paper comes late.

If happiness is the goal here, pursuing the good and the constructive ought to yield better results.

And what people pay to avoid at one point in time, people may pay to engage at another. I often ponder telling a relative from 100/1,000/10,000+ years ago how humans today pay to do manual labor at a gym that serves no general benefit. Most of human history has been spent evolving to avoid manual labor and now, a vast amount of people (Western world) pay to do pointless manual labor. Past relative "So you pay someone else for the right to move heavy objects and pointlessly run in place??? You pay for this???" I often speculate what activities today humans are trying to avoid that we will pay for in the future (getting yelled at, sitting at a desk, write/respond to emails, put on hold, stuck in traffic, incorrect fast food orders, any others?)

[zbigi]

I often speculate what activities today humans are trying to avoid that we will pay for in the future (getting yelled at, sitting at a desk, write/respond to emails, put on hold, stuck in traffic, incorrect fast food orders, any others?)

In EVE Online, and (to a lesser degree) in other MMOs, people already pay for a simulation of having a fairly stressful and mundane job.