Time is money =?

On Habré, the article "Translation of time into money and back" was recently published. In the future, I will refer to it as the original one, for I will mainly repel the ideas expressed there. So, in that article there are many points that I want to fix. This article was conceived as a response article.

To begin with, let us clarify the meaning of the two formulas given in the original article, but for convenience of perception, we write them in a different style:

1. 
   
2. 
   

, where M - the average amount of money earned over a certain period of time; and - the total duration of this time period and the total duration of the part during which the person worked directly. and - coefficients expressing the time / money ratio for the entire time period and the part during which the person worked.

And now we will understand in the sense of these formulas. The first allows you to calculate the productivity of a person as a worker. If we assume that the salary is calculated on the basis of the employee’s real benefit for the enterprise, then averaging the wages by the number of hours worked gives us the effectiveness of the work of this person. That is, the sum of 625 rubles , given in the original article, means that the author of the article for one hour of his working time creates benefits for 625 rubles.

Here it should be noted that this formula does not mean that the author creates wealth in the amount of 625 rubles every hour of his working time, since the process of creating wealth is obviously quantized. As a consequence, it makes sense to introduce a certain minimum time during which a minimum portion of material goods can be created (not necessarily one thing).
')
The same effect of quantization allows us to explain the inefficiency of processing, which is mentioned by the author of the original article. So, if processing is carried out in small portions every day, so that the minimum time for continuous processing is always less than the minimum quantum of effective work, then processing becomes really inefficient, due to the fact that no material wealth is created during this time, which means that no one will pay.

The second formula means something completely different, although it has the same unit of measurement. She talks about what means a person has on average for a certain period of time. It is also quantized, but in a different way. One quantum, in this formula, is a pair: the amount of money received at a time and, accordingly, the period of time through which a person receives money. Thus, a person who receives 100,000 rubles a month and 25,000 rubles a week will have the same value. . But the first can afford a one-time purchase of up to 100,000 p. from one salary, and the second will have to save four salaries for the same purchase. (we believe that in the month of four weeks exactly).

Further in the original article it is proposed to calculate the allowable value of the goods by multiplying the time. during which the goods will be effectively used, on the cost per unit of time of the buyer of the goods. To calculate the cost per unit of time, the buyer is offered to divide the total income for the time interval M by the amount of free time. . At first glance, the theory seems logical, but it is only at first glance. If you think about it, then the proposed theory works only when making assumptions:

1. Since the total time of use of a product is multiplied by the total cost of a purchaser's unit of time, it is assumed that a person can use only one product at a time.
2. It is clearly assumed that the time during which a person spends money, and the time during which he earns it, cannot be superimposed on each other.
3. Equality of the priorities of all products should also be assumed.

Now take a closer look at the three assumptions described above.

The first assumption in real life is almost impossible to accomplish, since a person at each time point requires much more than one product or service. As a result, a product that has only a fraction of the cost per hour can be greatly overvalued. For example, when calculating the cost of the phone, conducted by the lega in the comments to the original article, we get the sum of 8760 * 180 = 1.5 million rubles. If we use in the calculation at least the time spent on phone calls ^{(which is also not true, but much more accurately than the use of total time)} , then we get 32 ​​thousand rubles based on the duration of calls for about half an hour a day.

The assumption that a person cannot spend money at the same time when he earns it is wrong, if only in this case, part of the life of clothing, mobile and other goods used during work is excluded from the calculation. As a result, there may be a shortage of depreciation for those goods that, in fact, have obviously worn out, but according to calculations must still serve, since part of their working time has not been taken into account.

The latter assumption in the context of the original article is not at all obvious, but to reconcile this theory, at least with the pyramid of needs, its introduction is necessary. Obviously, we make all the purchases we make in order to satisfy our needs. And even when a rich philanthropist donates millions to the development of art, he also does it for the sake of satisfying his needs, not only material, but spiritual. It is also well known that different needs of a person are not equivalent and have a different priority in satisfaction. Consequently, the goods designed to satisfy them must have different priorities. These priorities can be set, for example, by the same coefficients that the author of the original article writes about at the end.

To be continued…