cost and benefit

When Parking Is Like Cheetos Lip Balm

Comments (4)
  1. Rick Shapiro says:

    There is no question that the sunk cost fallacy is a true fallacy. But the parking decision not a question of sunk cost, but of complete initial ignorance of the relative delays at each parking line. Time spent does nothing to dispel that ignorance of initial prospective delays, but does represent an investment that could as easily be needed at any line, That investment is dissipated by a switch (this assumes that parking somewhere is required).
    The sunk cost fallacy undoubtedly contributes to the impetus to extend the high-speed rail line, but at least as important are lobbying pressures and willful ignorance of the true cost of maintenance and of the possibility of integrating much cheaper bus connections.

    1. Elaine Schwartz says:

      Respectfully, Rick, I disagree. We had parked in the lot before and had no delays. This time, trying to decide if we should leave because of the accumulating wait time, we were dissuaded (wisely it turned out) by our sunk cost.

  2. Rick Shapiro says:

    You were wisely dissuaded by a fallacy; but logical analysis of the implications of unchanged initial ignorance would have led to the same conclusion. Similar analysis of unchanged initial ignorance leads to the opposite conclusion (switching) in the Monty Hall problem.

    1. Elaine Schwartz says:

      Thanks Rick!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *