March 13, 2015 at 12:34Time is money =?
The article "Transferring time into money and vice versa" was recently published on Habré . In the future, I will refer to it as the original one, because I will start mainly from the ideas expressed there. So, in that article there are many points that I want to correct. This article was conceived as a response article.
First, we clarify the meaning of the two formulas given in the original article, but for convenience, we will write them in a different style:
where M is the average amount of money earned over a given period of time;
and 
- the total duration of a given time period and the total duration of that part of it during which the person directly worked. 
and 
- coefficients expressing the ratio of time / money for the entire time period and that part of it 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 wages are calculated on the basis of the real benefit of the employee for the enterprise, then averaging wages by the number of hours worked gives us the efficiency of this person. That is, the amount of 625 rubles given in the original article means that the author of the article creates benefits for 625 rubles in one hour of his working time.
It should be noted here that this formula does not mean at all that the author creates material wealth in the amount of 625 rubles every hour of his working time, since the process of creating a material good is obviously quantized. As a result of this, it makes sense to introduce some minimum time during which a minimum portion of material goods can be created (not necessarily one thing).
Also, the quantization effect allows us to explain the inefficiency of processing, which the author of the original article mentions. So, if the processing is carried out in small batches every day, so that the minimum continuous processing time is always less than the minimum quantum of effective work, then the processing becomes really inefficient, due to the fact that no material goods are created during this time, which means that no one will pay.
The second formula means a completely different one, 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 by a different principle. 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. So, a person receiving 100,000 rubles a month and 25,000 rubles a week will have the same value. But the first one can afford a one-time purchase worth up to 100,000 p. from one salary, and the second will have to save four salaries for the same purchase. (We believe that the month is exactly four weeks).
Further in the original article, it is proposed to calculate the allowable cost of the product by multiplying the time
during which the product will be effectively used, per unit time of the buyer of the goods. To calculate the cost per unit of time, the buyer is proposed to divide the total income for the time interval M by the amount of free time 
. At first glance, the theory looks logical, but it is only at first glance. If you think about it, the proposed theory only works if the assumptions are fulfilled:
Now we consider in more detail the three assumptions described above.
The first assumption in real life is almost impossible to fulfill, since a person at each moment in time requires much more than one product or service. As a result, a product that has only a fraction of the cost of an hour can be greatly overestimated. For example, when calculating the cost of the phone spent by lega in the comments on the original article, the result is 8760 * 180 = 1.5 million rubles. If you use at least the time spent talking on the phone (which is also not true, but noticeably more accurate than using the total time) , you get 32 thousand rubles from the calculation of the duration of the calls about half an hour a day.
The assumption that a person cannot spend money at the same time when he earns it incorrectly, if only because, in this case, part of the service life of clothes, mobile and other goods used during work is excluded from the calculation. As a result of this, there may be a shortage of depreciation on those goods that, in fact, have already clearly worn out, but according to the calculations should still serve, since part of their working time has not been taken into account.
The last assumption in the context of the original article is not at all obvious, but in order to harmonize this theory with at least the pyramid of needs, it is necessary to introduce it. It is clear that we make all purchases that we make to satisfy our needs. And even when a rich philanthropist donates millions to the development of art, he also does this in order to satisfy his needs, not just material, but spiritual. It is also well known that different human needs are not equivalent and have different priorities in satisfying. Consequently, the goods designed to satisfy them must have different priorities. These priorities can be set, for example, by the very same coefficients that the author of the original article writes about at the end.
To be continued…
First, we clarify the meaning of the two formulas given in the original article, but for convenience, we will write them in a different style:
where M is the average amount of money earned over a given period of time;
and - the total duration of a given time period and the total duration of that part of it during which the person directly worked. and - coefficients expressing the ratio of time / money for the entire time period and that part of it 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 wages are calculated on the basis of the real benefit of the employee for the enterprise, then averaging wages by the number of hours worked gives us the efficiency of this person. That is, the amount of 625 rubles given in the original article means that the author of the article creates benefits for 625 rubles in one hour of his working time.
It should be noted here that this formula does not mean at all that the author creates material wealth in the amount of 625 rubles every hour of his working time, since the process of creating a material good is obviously quantized. As a result of this, it makes sense to introduce some minimum time during which a minimum portion of material goods can be created (not necessarily one thing).
Also, the quantization effect allows us to explain the inefficiency of processing, which the author of the original article mentions. So, if the processing is carried out in small batches every day, so that the minimum continuous processing time is always less than the minimum quantum of effective work, then the processing becomes really inefficient, due to the fact that no material goods are created during this time, which means that no one will pay.
The second formula means a completely different one, 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 by a different principle. 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. So, a person receiving 100,000 rubles a month and 25,000 rubles a week will have the same value
. But the first one can afford a one-time purchase worth up to 100,000 p. from one salary, and the second will have to save four salaries for the same purchase. (We believe that the month is exactly four weeks). Further in the original article, it is proposed to calculate the allowable cost of the product by multiplying the time
during which the product will be effectively used, per unit time of the buyer of the goods. To calculate the cost per unit of time, the buyer is proposed to divide the total income for the time interval M by the amount of free time . At first glance, the theory looks logical, but it is only at first glance. If you think about it, the proposed theory only works if the assumptions are fulfilled:- Since the total time of use of the product is multiplied by the total cost per unit of time of the buyer, it is assumed that at each time a person can use only one product.
- It is clearly assumed that the time during which a person spends money, and the time during which he earns it, cannot overlap each other.
- It should also be assumed that the priorities of all products are equal.
Now we consider in more detail the three assumptions described above.
The first assumption in real life is almost impossible to fulfill, since a person at each moment in time requires much more than one product or service. As a result, a product that has only a fraction of the cost of an hour can be greatly overestimated. For example, when calculating the cost of the phone spent by lega in the comments on the original article, the result is 8760 * 180 = 1.5 million rubles. If you use at least the time spent talking on the phone (which is also not true, but noticeably more accurate than using the total time) , you get 32 thousand rubles from the calculation of the duration of the calls about half an hour a day.
The assumption that a person cannot spend money at the same time when he earns it incorrectly, if only because, in this case, part of the service life of clothes, mobile and other goods used during work is excluded from the calculation. As a result of this, there may be a shortage of depreciation on those goods that, in fact, have already clearly worn out, but according to the calculations should still serve, since part of their working time has not been taken into account.
The last assumption in the context of the original article is not at all obvious, but in order to harmonize this theory with at least the pyramid of needs, it is necessary to introduce it. It is clear that we make all purchases that we make to satisfy our needs. And even when a rich philanthropist donates millions to the development of art, he also does this in order to satisfy his needs, not just material, but spiritual. It is also well known that different human needs are not equivalent and have different priorities in satisfying. Consequently, the goods designed to satisfy them must have different priorities. These priorities can be set, for example, by the very same coefficients that the author of the original article writes about at the end.
To be continued…