Son No 1 groaned when he read in my AirAsia blog post that I would not hesitate to book AirAsia again when our family next goes on holiday. He'd much prefer Cathay Pacific or Singapore Airlines, which we took when we went to Hong Kong the year before. But... of course. Who wouldn't?
Hmm... a lesson on economics seems to be order. Economics is, simply put, how one manages limited resources to fulfil unlimited wants. In other words, we want a lot of things, but our resources, be it money or time or manpower, are limited. Here, I would focus on money as the limited resource - we are far from the calibre of Daddy Warbucks.
So I asked Son No 1 to think about it: Would he prefer that we go on an overseas holiday once every two years, flying AirAsia, or once every three years, flying a full-serviced airline? The cost of flying AirAsia is roughly two-thirds the cost of flying a full-serviced airline and airfare is by far the single largest expenditure for an overseas holiday for our family of five. This is a question of trade-off.
The next lesson is a bit more complex - the question of notional incremental benefit. If we pay 30% more for the full-serviced airline, do we get 30% more enjoyment? Not forgetting that this questionable 30% more enjoyment is only limited to the duration of the flight, which is a small fraction of time for the total trip. For our recent Gold Coast adventure, total flight time was 16 hours versus 168 hours (7 days) that we spent at the Gold Coast.
Good thing Son No 1 is mathematical and is logical in thinking. I think he can grasp the arguments that are posed. Let him mull over it. My objective is to raise awareness, not to dictate his thinking. We all recognise that there is no right or wrong answer. How we allocate our resources, or in this case, money, depends on many factors, such as one's value system, objective and personal preferences.
If I were travelling alone, I do not even need to think about it. Flying a budget airline is not a problem for me. I do not need the frills. I'd sit there on the plane with a good book and some good tidbits and that would keep me quite happy for hours on end. So long as the airline has a good safety record, I might add.
Now that I am travelling with hubby and children, sigh, it is a different ball-game altogether. They are all individuals in their own rights with different wants. There are more decision criteria that need to be assessed.
I always feel that as the children grow, it would be good to have them understand how we make decisions. It is a lifeskill. In our household, we always apply principles of economics, whether we know it or not. We do not always go for the cheapest that is available in the market. We go for value for money.
And to determine value for money, we always look at alternatives available and the incremental benefit. The 160GB i-pod may seem "cheaper" when compared to the 80GB based on cost per GB, but if we do not even use more than 30GB, then it would not make sense to buy the 160GB. The other useful measurement is cost per use. If the item would be used frequently, then we wouldn't mind paying more for one that is of better quality.
Even when I go to the market, I apply some sort of economic principles, lol! It is really quite simple when it becomes a habit and a way of thinking. Cod fish or mackerel?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Abt Son No.1 being highly mathematical, i cannot agree more.
Hey, humour me - when u hv the time - cite some egs of how he showed his mathematical prowess fr young. i remember that he figured out what 9 x 9 was at a very young age (3 maybe) and not by rote learning.
OK, I am in the mood to humour :) When you ask a mother to talk about her son, anytime!
Yes, he's a firm believer of NOT rote-learning, and sometimes it drives me crazy. He would go 9X10=90, therefore 9X9 = 90-9=81. And so on. It is good that he uses this type of deductive reasoning but some rote-learning does save time. I know in India, they memorise mathematical tables up to 20 (according to my ex-boss from India).
Son No 1 could tell time using the analog clock from a young age. He figured it out himself, so he would go 9:55 when he hasn't learnt multiplication by 5. He was also good with money and used to love playing Monopoly. He never showed the same interest for Scrabble.
But I wouldn't call it mathematical prowess, he just had an eye for numbers. I told him that up to A levels, he probably has his path charted - he should follow his Ping Yee's example and take Maths and Further Maths. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess :)
Post a Comment