The Difference Between Cost and Value and Why It Matters
What's a few trillion dollars spent on an expanded notion of infrastructure versus its value to our country?
I learned from a young age to recognize value, regardless of the cost of a product. To value something, like a piece of artwork, for example, doesn’t mean you have to create it or buy it, but to understand that it is inherently worth something aside from its monetary cost. Much like the “cost” of preserving land in its pristine state or saving species or not polluting the air and water — these choices may have monetary costs, but are valuable to us now and to future generations.
My sister, Renee, who is a dozen years older than I, is a multimedia artist whose work has been worthy of display in museums (see above photo). When Renee went off to college, I entered the first grade, condemning our parents to 12 more years of fatigue, worry, and yes, cost. Even before I could do any meaningful reading, though, I learned from watching her toil away on her art and actually produce remarkable pieces, that the literal cost of time and supplies showed up in the value of the resulting creation. And this value far outstripped any cost.
…the cost of the current infrastructure bill is being endlessly debated, yet its value is rarely discussed.
Artists are generally attuned to the differences between cost and value, but many elected officials and business owners…not so much. For example, the cost of the current infrastructure bill is being endlessly debated, yet its value is rarely discussed. But this New York Times opinion piece does just the opposite and challenges our elected officials to consider both the short-term and long-term value in investing this money in our people. Yes, it is indeed an investment rather than a cost, and its value is incalculable. The author, Bryce Covert, explains that “The dollar figure doesn’t ultimately matter if we’re spending the money on the right things. And the failure to make some of these investments comes with its own cost.” It certainly does.
What is the cost to our society of the illnesses and deaths caused by rotting lead water pipes, the lack of full educational opportunities in millions of households still without fast Internet access or any at all, of the collapse of roadways and bridges, of a lack of efficient public transportation on the economy, the failure to address climate change? These aren’t “wants” they’re “needs” and delaying funding on any of these projects just makes our needs as a county greater.
This recent analysis of the infrastructure bills from SmartAsset1 proves how much need our country has for these expansions and upgrades with precise charts on nearly every aspect of both the traditional and “human infrastructure” bills. This is where the money is propsed to go and should go.
The full implementation of this plan will directly and positively impact individuals and enhance our country as a whole.
And in this fact sheet detailing spending for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan (the lower cost plan), the White House specifically explains how the money will be spent and exactly why. And the why is what is important: crumbling roads and bridges will be repaired, public transit expanded, clean drinking water ensured for all communities, regardless of wealth, upgraded and expanded high-speed internet, environmental clean-ups and more.
This is the human version of an old-growth forest’s underground communication system—it will provide support to those projects and people who need it the most, which in turn, will allow our country to catch up with the rest of the industrialized world, and most importantly, to thrive. The full implementation of this plan along with its proposed $3.5 billion cousin will provide value far independent of and exceeding its price tag. It will provide for the greater good, which is exactly what our government is supposed to do.
Why not Follow me on Twitter while you’re at it?
Smart Asset is a private financial technology company that provides advice on major financial decisions.
Additional Reading: “The Social Life of Forests” by Ferris Jabr
Here is what is missing in your analysis. Value is (always) a relative term. For example the value (cost) of your sister’s art work is whatever anyone is willing to pay for it. It has no inherent value, only a use value. The fallacy in your argument is that some things are inherently more valuable than others. But that presumes that the assigning of value is done on some kind of “objective” basis. But there is no such thing. Value is a creation of the objects relation to the humans that interact with it. If you want to address the extreme example to illustrate the point, you need to consider that even global warming, which could result in the destruction of life on the planet, is not, from the standpoint of cosmological physics, a dictate that is ordained by any measure “value.” Follow the science!
Actually the main issue is between moderate and progressive democrats, as I learned from NPR!