# Sunk Cost Trap



## michzz (Jun 6, 2008)

Oh, I am sure this applies when trying to decide to leave a cheating spouse. Just replace "activity" with "marriage".

"Sunk cost trap refers to a tendency for people to irrationally follow through on an activity that is not meeting their expectations. This is because of the time and/or money they have already invested."


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

michzz said:


> Oh, i am sure this applies when trying to decide to leave a cheating spouse. Jus replace "activity" with "marriage".
> 
> "Sunk cost trap refers to a tendency for people to irrationally follow through on an activity that is not meeting their expectations. This is because of the time and/or money they have already invested."


Yes, the idea of sunk cost is probably applicable to relationships. 

Anybody who has taken a basic economics course understands the idea of sunk cost. The concept that resources which have already been expended and which can not affect future outcomes have no bearing on a present decision is central to decision making in many arenas. It also runs counter to human nature. 

The easiest way to explain is with an old car. Maybe you replace the alternator one week the brakes the next, and the radiator after that. You've put a lot of money into it and it would actually be cheaper to buy a new car (either considering total cost over the life of the car, or if you finance, the cost of the new car payment vs. the cost of maintenance and lost time due to the old car). People will say "I can't sell this car because I've already put so much money into it." But if the car's going to keep breaking down, it's still foolish to keep it no matter how much you've put into it. 

My mom never took a econ course, but she knew this well. She would say "don't chase good money after bad."

What's been wasted has been wasted.... wasting more will not recover it.

Bringing it closer to the topic of marriage, let's say you've been getting couples counseling and you've not had any progress. It's easy to say you need to keep seeing the same therapist because of all you've invested with him so far. But if the investment hasn't provided any return, doubling down won't help. You're better off starting from scratch with a new therapist. 

Now closing in on relationships. The longer you have invested in a relationship, the easier is to say "I can't throw away 10 (or 20 or 30) years! But if staying is less satisfying or beneficial to you than the alternative, it doesn't matter how long you've been in the relationship. 

... the caveat to all this is it assumes that resources already expended can not affect future outcomes. If you've replaced all the worn components in a car, it's not going to break down any more. You've got to figure out what your risk exposure with the car in its current condition. If all that time with the therapist has been building a foundation, you may be on the verge of a breakthrough and starting over would be a major setback. You've got to be able to assess with eyes fully open what the likelihood of that may be. 

And with the relationship, there maybe some benefit in working to repair it with someone you already know and love. If both parties are fully committed to doing so, then the past decade(s) isn't really "sunk cost." If not, then indeed, is is sunk const and should have no bearing on decision making.


----------



## MattMatt (May 19, 2012)

This is a very good take on the Sunk Cost Fallacy from Scott Adams:-



> 22. *UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT OF SUNK COSTS*
> Example: We’ve spent millions developing a water-powered pogo stick. We can’t stop investing now or it will all be wasted.


Dilbert's Logical Fallacies


----------



## StillSearching (Feb 8, 2013)

It's called ROI

Return On Investment.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Thats why all those BS's that always say that they are gonna wait/reaccess when the kids are out of the house, never do and never really plan to.


----------



## blahfridge (Dec 6, 2014)

Sunk cost doesn't take into account family ties, children (even adult ones) that will affected or financial entanglements that sometimes can take years to unravel. It's certainly been the case with me. I was in graduate school, he lost his job for a while, college costs were incurred for two children, debts accumulated and now they must be paid. We are in the process of consulting a financial advisor and once the debt is paid down, then I will feel like I can make a decision about my future with the knowledge that, at 60 years old, I will have a secure financial future. Yes, it's taking more time than I would like, but it's what works best for me. People assume that cowardliness or complacency are the cause of a "sunk cost" attitude. It's usually a lot more complicated than that. I don't judge anyone for what decision they make about their marriage. Everyone deserves to be able to sleep at night.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti (Apr 23, 2017)

blahfridge said:


> Sunk cost doesn't take into account family ties, children (even adult ones) that will affected or financial entanglements that sometimes can take years to unravel. It's certainly been the case with me. I was in graduate school, he lost his job for a while, college costs were incurred for two children, debts accumulated and now they must be paid. We are in the process of consulting a financial advisor and once the debt is paid down, then I will feel like I can make a decision about my future with the knowledge that, at 60 years old, I will have a secure financial future. Yes, it's taking more time than I would like, but it's what works best for me. People assume that cowardliness or complacency are the cause of a "sunk cost" attitude. It's usually a lot more complicated than that. I don't judge anyone for what decision they make about their marriage. Everyone deserves to be able to sleep at night.


Sunk costs does take all that into account. The whole point is that sunk costs are those for which there is no future benefit to be gained. If maintaining family relationships or financial ties yields some relative benefit compared to splitting, then they are not entirely sunk costs.


----------



## oldtruck (Feb 15, 2018)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Thats why all those BS's that always say that they are gonna wait/reaccess when the kids are out of the house, never do and never really plan to.





blahfridge said:


> Sunk cost doesn't take into account family ties, children (even adult ones) that will affected or financial entanglements that sometimes can take years to unravel. It's certainly been the case with me. I was in graduate school, he lost his job for a while, college costs were incurred for two children, debts accumulated and now they must be paid. We are in the process of consulting a financial advisor and once the debt is paid down, then I will feel like I can make a decision about my future with the knowledge that, at 60 years old, I will have a secure financial future. Yes, it's taking more time than I would like, but it's what works best for me. People assume that cowardliness or complacency are the cause of a "sunk cost" attitude. It's usually a lot more complicated than that. I don't judge anyone for what decision they make about their marriage. Everyone deserves to be able to sleep at night.


There are many reasons why a BS does not divorce.

And do not forget the BS was not having an affair so they were not looking to leave
their marriage in the first place.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Yeah, and like all the things that matter in life, they can be analyzed through a neo-classical economics lens, true that!


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Sunk cost trap, flap.

When your house is on fire, you grab your loved ones and hightail it out the door. 
You leave everything behind, maybe not Fido.

When your marriage is on fire, most dawdle and count the silverware, discounting the same life that was worth saving at all costs.

A persons life, as short as it is, is worth any shiny baubles, green back turtles, McMansion, 401K reduced to 200.5K.

Yeah, right....

Who thinks that way, who does that?

Just Sayin'


King Brian-


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

i am not a big believer in this sunk cost fallacy thing.

Let say you pursue something....like a customer at work, trying to win the big order. So year 1, they tease you along, but you get no big order. Year 2, they tease you along, and you get some crumbs. So do you get pissed year 3 and write them off, or give them half hearted service? 

Imagine year 1 and 2 they chose another vendor, and they find they do not really like him. His prices are rising, and they fondly remember all the effort you put into trying to get them as a customer. It is fairly likely year 3 they will welcome you with open arms, and give you the big order then.

Just because it did not work out at first, does not mean you abandon everything.


this applies to human relations too....do not be obsessed and delusional about it, but do not give up too soon either


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Talker67 said:


> i am not a big believer in this sunk cost fallacy thing.
> 
> Let say you pursue something....like a customer at work, trying to win the big order. So year 1, they tease you along, but you get no big order. Year 2, they tease you along, and you get some crumbs. So do you get pissed year 3 and write them off, or give them half hearted service?
> 
> ...


Or they could give you a big order Year 1. Break contract and not pay in Year 2. Then Year 3 say they want you to fulfill another big order and then they will pay. At what point, do you say this is a losing bet and you are through playing the game.


----------



## Talker67 (Apr 7, 2016)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Or they could give you a big order Year 1. Break contract and not pay in Year 2. Then Year 3 say they want you to fulfill another big order and then they will pay. At what point, do you say this is a losing bet and you are through playing the game.


yes, all sorts of possibilities. It is not a clear cut choice though....


----------



## SadSamIAm (Oct 29, 2010)

No relationship is perfect. They have their ups and downs. For my own relationship, I would categorize it as:

Years 1 - 4 - Awesome! Loved being together. Lots of great sex. 
Years 5 - 15 - Pretty Good! Had children. Got busy. Less Sex. Great family time. Great family vacations.
Years 15 - 28 - Pretty Bad! Teenagers. Fighting about disciplining them. Almost sexless at times. Constantly thinking of leaving.
Years 28 - 30 - Getting Better! A bit more sex. Getting used to having older children
Years 30 to present - Pretty Awesome. Getting used to just the two of us as kids have grown/moved out. Sex is more often, but not like early years. OK with that as getting older!

When thinks were bad and I was thinking of leaving, I constantly had thoughts about 'sunk cost trap'. Do I stay and maybe have a crappy life? Do I go and maybe have a great life? Maybe a crappy life alone? Maybe a crappy life with someone else? Leave and split finances? Break up family for chance at happiness? 

In the end, I chose to stay and make it work. Even though sex didn't happen very often for a number of years, when it did, it was awesome. Still is awesome. I think that was a major point in staying. If there was no passion, I think I might have cashed in my chips and tried something different. As of right now, I am happy with the choices I made.


----------

