disutility

In terms of experienced disutility, the two are largely the same; relative deprivation is a very significant source of disutility.

If the disutility to an employer of absorbing short term risk is lower than the disutility to the employee, it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the disutility of not having anything to eat or to wear is greater than the utility gained from using drugs.

Each new product doesn't just bring utility in terms of what customers can do - it also brings disutility in other areas.

You never get to avoid the disutility of labor (X in my formulation).

Relative deprivation has been demostrated to be a major source of disutility.

If people derive disutility from wasting food, then it's perfectly rational to choose 10 nuggets over 20 if you only plan to eat 10 nuggets.

But on the other hand, he didn't create overall disutility (i.e.

Relative deprivation is an important, extensively empirically demonstrated, source of disutility.

If there is disutility in throwing away 10 nuggets, then it is optimal to order only 10, because there is only utility from 10 either way.

As with most things, free time as a declining marginal utility, which means sacrificing free time has an increasing marginal disutility which must be paid for by what is offered in exchange for that sacrifice.

An unfounded one because you pulled the numbers out of your ass, but you're making the claim that the utility provided by security theater is outweighed by the disutility it creates.

I've seen variations of this statement many times on HN, that is, "there's no such thing as disutility of labor".

Of course, it may be rational if the utility provided to a particular player by "playing the lottery" (the entertainment value, etc.) exceeds the expected net disutility associated with financial expectations.