Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
So we can actually graph this out following the concept of marginal utility. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the return for increased spending gets steep above $5000. That is only part of the equation.
The next part is what those funds not spent on a bike could be spent upon,and the utility from such expenditure.
On a micro level, if you are struggling to pay buy groceries, the utility of buying another pound of hamburger greatly exceeds shaving 50 grams off your bike.
However, if you have everything you need, and most of what you want, that 50 grams could be worth a few bucks.
On a micro level, you can’t judge for a person in who’s shoes you do not walk
On a macro level, the market sorts it out.
You obviously remember your microeconomics course. Along with utility and marginal utility, you're applying the concept of
opportunity cost -- which essentially suggests that a $10,000 bike
costs different amounts for different consumers. That's one of the key factors that many of these scolding posters don't recognize: to someone who has substantial net worth, buying a $10k bike is no big deal because it doesn't require giving up anything else that is deemed essential or even important.
Though I must offer one correction: individual markets are still considered the micro level, not macro. You can see that by perusing the table of contents of any intro level text. Trivial detail in this context, obviously.