Bumi wrote:LettuceBeefRealTea wrote:quitting any task that you decide to undertake without being physically unable to finish is pretty shitty. mostly for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs ... st_fallacy
i'm an econ/math major, but there are things that escape economic analysis. from an econ standpoint, 95% of the population should kill themselves when they hit 60. econ is the same as most sciences (chem, physics, biology, history, etc.), they are awesome at explaining broad, large scale tendencies but fail as the scale gets smaller. things turn meaningless and chaotic. the understanding of the big events is predicated on the fact that millions of small events have a slightly higher probability of turning out a certain way than another. you might say that the idea of sunk costs is a small event with a huge probability of being financially smart. if this is so, then almost every single student facing the same debt load and job prospects should drop out. the opportunity cost of even going to law school in the first place is stupidly huge in almost all situations, so most people outside of even the T3 should probably drop out and use their time and money for more profitable purposes. since the huge majority of people are staying in school despite being in a similar situation as this person, his choice is a deviation from the event's trend/higher probability. therefore this was a decision based on human emotion. this makes it not a question of economics but happiness or some other human emotion/quality that makes economic analysis at the individual level chaotic. this is what my response addressed a way of evaluating those emotions.
i know sunk costs. do you know the will to power?