UNSW BSoc O-Camp (1 Viewer)

[Shadowdude]

Yes ofc you can't recoup it. Thats the point of a non-refundable deposit.

But do you understand my line of reasoning and the point I'm trying to make here? I'm saying because people have entered in their $50, they may not want to pull out, as they will consider this as a waste of money. Rather, because they have put in $50 already, they might as well go to the camp and utilise the $50 they have put in as part of the entire payment and go to the camp.

Consider this: You pay $30 to go to an all you can eat restaurant. You stuff yourself on say... $12 of really tasty sausage sandwiches until you absolutely cannot eat anymore or else you'll throw up. But you've only eaten $12 worth of food, should you then try and eat another $18 of food to "recoup" your costs?

 

[obliviousninja]

Consider this: You pay $30 to go to an all you can eat restaurant. You stuff yourself on say... $12 of really tasty sausage sandwiches until you absolutely cannot eat anymore or else you'll throw up. But you've only eaten $12 worth of food, should you then try and eat another $18 of food to "recoup" your costs?

That's an entirely different scenario, because the end outcome is that you're satisfied, and that $30 you payed initially, covers everything, whilst furthermore the ocamp situation is not a matter of re-cooperating costs. What I mentioned previously is a different case, as you have already entered a deposit, as such, you now have $50 less to pay for the next installment. But if you decide to pull out, that $50 is totally gone now.

 

[Shadowdude]

That's an entirely different scenario, because the end outcome is that you're satisfied, and that $30 you payed initially, covers everything, whilst furthermore the ocamp situation is not a matter of re-cooperating costs. What I mentioned previously is a different case, as you have already entered a deposit, as such, you now have $50 less to pay for the next installment. But if you decide to pull out, that $50 is totally gone now.

Okay then, say that you have to drive an hour to get to the restaurant.

What then?

---

And to the bolded, the $50 is gone forever. The Camp Cost if you decide to go through ahead with the booking: $200. The Camp Cost if you decide to not go ahead with the booking: $200.

 

[obliviousninja]

Okay then, say that you have to drive an hour to get to the restaurant.

What then?

Exactly! If you have spent time, as well money on petrol to get there, why would you want to head back without getting a feed? You might as well go!

 

[Trans4M]

I hate to say it but not many people apply the sunk cost principle in real life.

 

[OMGITzJustin]

oblivious obviously has not studied micro

 

[obliviousninja]

oblivious obviously has not studied micro

All the shangs do micro, all the hongkies do macro.

 

[Shadowdude]

Exactly! If you have spent time, as well money on petrol to get there, why would you want to head back without getting a feed? You might as well go!

Okay, so maybe the restaurant example was flawed.

The point is, whether you go through with it or not, you can't change the past. Therefore, it should not affect your future considerations.

In the example of the camp, it is irrational to consider the camp deposit as a factor in deciding on whether to go - because whether you decide to go or not, you will still have paid the camp deposit. You can "cancel" that "factor" out from both sides, if you will.


Suppose you like this girl, and you want to take her out to a movie. You pay $20 in total for the tickets and transport there. But she hates the movie - and is offering $15 worth of ice cream, her shout, for ditching the movie.

What do you do?

On the one hand, you might say "I paid $20 for the tickets, and you're only offering something worth $15. So I'll pass." That's what I think you're getting at. "I've already paid $20, so why leave? I might as well get my money's worth."

You have two options:

1. Not go because you want to get your money's worth. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $15 in free ice cream. You lose $5.


But what if she offers $25 worth of ice cream?

1. Not go for some reason. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $25 in free ice cream. You gain $5.


In both cases, it's more rational to go. The tickets are a sunk cost, you can "cancel" it out. Therefore if she offers you $15 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $15.

If she offers you $25 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $25.


See what I mean? You can't escape the fact that you will have already lost $20, so it shouldn't matter what you do. It can't be recuperated. What you can do is make good decisions to minimise your loss, or maximise your gain in the future.

I hate to say it but not many people apply the sunk cost principle in real life.

But they should.

 

[OMGITzJustin]

All the shangs do micro, all the hongkies do macro.

in all fairness shadowdude is patronising you, I see your point, he's just giving you first year treatment

 

[albertcamus]

line up at 9'o clock means line up at 8:45 lol

i got a ticket but i got there a tad before 8:30

between 8:45 and 9:00 about 70 people came and i'd say the line of 100/120 (however many tickets were sold) was full by 9:12-ish

 

[obliviousninja]

Okay, so maybe the restaurant example was flawed.

The point is, whether you go through with it or not, you can't change the past. Therefore, it should not affect your future considerations.

In the example of the camp, it is irrational to consider the camp deposit as a factor in deciding on whether to go - because whether you decide to go or not, you will still have paid the camp deposit. You can "cancel" that "factor" out from both sides, if you will.


Suppose you like this girl, and you want to take her out to a movie. You pay $20 in total for the tickets and transport there. But she hates the movie - and is offering $15 worth of ice cream, her shout, for ditching the movie.

What do you do?

On the one hand, you might say "I paid $20 for the tickets, and you're only offering something worth $15. So I'll pass." That's what I think you're getting at. "I've already paid $20, so why leave? I might as well get my money's worth."

You have two options:

1. Not go because you want to get your money's worth. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $15 in free ice cream. You lose $5.


But what if she offers $25 worth of ice cream?

1. Not go for some reason. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $25 in free ice cream. You gain $5.


In both cases, it's more rational to go. The tickets are a sunk cost, you can "cancel" it out. Therefore if she offers you $15 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $15.

If she offers you $25 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $25.


See what I mean? You can't escape the fact that you will have already lost $20, so it shouldn't matter what you do. It can't be recuperated. What you can do is make good decisions to minimise your loss, or maximise your gain in the future.



But they should.

No. You still are approaching the situation from a wrong angle as if someone was deciding whether or not they should do the initial deposit. The whole time I have refering to the choice presented after an individual has done the deposit.

I kinda get where you are going with the example but it is once again flawed. By choosing to not take the ice cream, you dont lose $20, because you are exchanging the $20 with movie tickets. You have clearly contradicted yourself in the following line, where you say you gain $15, but contrastingly, this time it is an exchanged item (icecream), rather than the intangible $15.

I'm not talking about recooperating the $50 camp deposit. You mentioned losing $50 either way if you or dont go on camp. But by that same logic, are you suggesting the $50, if you were to go, wouldnt equate to any return, whether it be the cost or partial of certain enties (food/accomodation/etc.) on camp.

What Im trying to say, is that the $50 can be chucked down the drain or rather in fact you can ultilise it for some sort of return.

 

[tashe]

line up at 9'o clock means line up at 8:45 lol

i got a ticket but i got there a tad before 8:30

between 8:45 and 9:00 about 70 people came and i'd say the line of 100/120 (however many tickets were sold) was full by 9:12-ish

Did the line disband straight after the tickets were sold out?

I'm asking because I saw a long line at around 9:40 and I'm still wondering what it's for.

 

[Bumbleb33]

lol almost missed out on this too... though wouldnt have minded I was debating between this and fmf
i got there 9 30 and there were already like 80 ppl there lol
the dude told me there was 120 tix so should be good
then everyone was buying like 2 each hahaha so my friend and i found some randoms only buying 1 ticket each to help us out xD

 

[obliviousninja]

lol almost missed out on this too... though wouldnt have minded I was debating between this and fmf
i got there 9 30 and there were already like 80 ppl there lol
the dude told me there was 120 tix so should be good
then everyone was buying like 2 each hahaha so my friend and i found some randoms only buying 1 ticket each to help us out xD

dame. you fked me over.

they srsly should have put a rule that you cant buy for someone else.

 

[Bumbleb33]

if you are on reserve there is a goood chance you can still go. I heard that they only sell like 100/120 tickets so that they can pick out the rest from reserve to balance out the number of males and females.
because evryone with 60+ ticket was put on reserve. This meant that every single person had to have bought 2 tickets which is probably not the case

 

[Trans4M]

dame. you fked me over.

they srsly should have put a rule that you cant buy for someone else.

I don't think that would change much. You could have 100 people standing in a line of 50 people standing in a line. In terms of logistics it's better to have 50 people in a line. Most of the "other people" are also at oweek but probs getting other freebies nearby while they wait for camp tickets

 

[obliviousninja]

I was there at like 9 though, a lot of people who were grtting their tiks reserved by others werent even on campus at the time

 

[Trans4M]

But they should.

It's true they should but you will have a hard time convincing first years. Maybe when they do micro they will understand or maybe they won't. It's their loss to be irrational.

No. You still are approaching the situation from a wrong angle as if someone was deciding whether or not they should do the initial deposit. The whole time I have refering to the choice presented after an individual has done the deposit.

I kinda get where you are going with the example but it is once again flawed. By choosing to not take the ice cream, you dont lose $20, because you are exchanging the $20 with movie tickets. You have clearly contradicted yourself in the following line, where you say you gain $15, but contrastingly, this time it is an exchanged item (icecream), rather than the intangible $15.

I'm not talking about recooperating the $50 camp deposit. You mentioned losing $50 either way if you or dont go on camp. But by that same logic, are you suggesting the $50, if you were to go, wouldnt equate to any return, whether it be the cost or partial of certain enties (food/accomodation/etc.) on camp.

What Im trying to say, is that the $50 can be chucked down the drain or rather in fact you can ultilise it for some sort of return.

Um that is what Shadowdude has been talking about the whole time... Once you make a deposit, it's a sunk cost. If you haven't made the deposit and plan to, it should factor into your consideration.

Also if you don't accept the concept of sunk cost you are going to have a hard time getting through ECON1101.

 

[Shadowdude]

Hold on Trans4M, let's see if we can convince oblivious about sunk costs...

No. You still are approaching the situation from a wrong angle as if someone was deciding whether or not they should do the initial deposit. The whole time I have refering to the choice presented after an individual has done the deposit.

I kinda get where you are going with the example but it is once again flawed. By choosing to not take the ice cream, you dont lose $20, because you are exchanging the $20 with movie tickets. You have clearly contradicted yourself in the following line, where you say you gain $15, but contrastingly, this time it is an exchanged item (icecream), rather than the intangible $15.

If you mean this:

Suppose you like this girl, and you want to take her out to a movie. You pay $20 in total for the tickets and transport there. But she hates the movie - and is offering $15 worth of ice cream, her shout, for ditching the movie.

What do you do?

On the one hand, you might say "I paid $20 for the tickets, and you're only offering something worth $15. So I'll pass." That's what I think you're getting at. "I've already paid $20, so why leave? I might as well get my money's worth."

You have two options:

1. Not go because you want to get your money's worth. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $15 in free ice cream. You lose $5.


But what if she offers $25 worth of ice cream?

1. Not go for some reason. You lose $20.
2. Go. You lose $20, but get $25 in free ice cream. You gain $5.

Then I'm talking about after the deposit too. The wording is "you pay $20..." which means it's already done, like someone having already paid the deposit. What is current is your date offering ice cream.

And the whole "you lose $5" thing is to illustrate the value of what you gain or lose on the night overall. So even if you don't accept the notion of a 'sunk cost', you can see that taking the ice cream gives you more value on the night overall - but that contradicts your feelings of "I spent $20, I should get my money's worth".

Later on, here:

In both cases, it's more rational to go. The tickets are a sunk cost, you can "cancel" it out. Therefore if she offers you $15 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $15.

If she offers you $25 of ice cream, the two options become:

1. Not go. Gain nothing.
2. Go. Gain $25.

I present the case as someone who accepts the sunk cost. And "gain $15" and "gain $15 of ice cream" is the same thing, from a purely economic standpoint. Do you want a dollar, or something worth a dollar? Same thing.

I'm not talking about recooperating the $50 camp deposit. You mentioned losing $50 either way if you or dont go on camp. But by that same logic, are you suggesting the $50, if you were to go, wouldnt equate to any return, whether it be the cost or partial of certain enties (food/accomodation/etc.) on camp.

What Im trying to say, is that the $50 can be chucked down the drain or rather in fact you can ultilise it for some sort of return.

When you decide whether to go the camp or not, you have to consider everything. You run cost-benefit.

The cost is $250, of which you pay $50 now. The cost is also your time for that weekend. The benefit is make friends, experience, life, might find Mrs. obliviousninja, or whatever.

You weigh that up. You say "The total cost of the camp: $250 plus my time for that weekend is outweighed by the benefits of whatnot". You don't say "The cost is $50" because the camp costs $250, it's just that the deposit is $50, but that's only -part- of the costs.

See that you factor in the cost of the deposit in your original decision to go.


Now, suppose you've already paid the deposit. The remainder is $200.

If you 'chuck $50 down the drain', that means that the cost of going (now $200, the remainder) outweighs by the benefits of the camp. Why? The only time you'd not go to the camp is if you felt the cost outweighed the benefit. In that respect, it's a good decision - you've already lost $50 in the grand scheme of things, you can save another $200 by not paying the rest.

But if you blindly 'utilise it for some return', and the remaining cost outweighs the benefits of the camp - you just spent $250 on a camp you didn't want to go on (remember we assumed you already paid the deposit). $200 of which could've been avoided.

 

[anomalousdecay]

Um that is what Shadowdude has been talking about the whole time... Once you make a deposit, it's a sunk cost. If you haven't made the deposit and plan to, it should factor into your consideration.

Also if you don't accept the concept of sunk cost you are going to have a hard time getting through ECON1101.

Its a "what's done is done and is burnt" thing.