In defiance of economics

Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.

Its a law of economics which attempts to explain the utility derived from consuming a product. This law states that for every additional unit of product consumed, the utility derived from the act of consuming it keeps reducing. Ultimately, if the consumption continues, it will lead to negative utility i.e. dis-utility.

Simple example, a person is dying of thirst. The first glass of water that he drinks will provide him with the highest amount of satisfaction or utility. The second glass, while still important, will be of lesser signifance as compared to the first and will bring him lesser satisfaction. If he continues to keep drinking water, ultimately he will puke which is what I meant by dis-utility.

This is what everybody knows, reads and has been propogated as conventional wisdom. This is how it looks from outside in.

Now, lets look at this from inside out.

An inherent assumption in this law is, there is always some satisfaction to be derived from performing an act and this satisfaction reduces with every additional performance. If an act does not provide any satisfaction, why would someone perform that act.

Except, a person has multiple needs which needs to be satisfied. What if performing an act satisfies one need but blatantly ignores another need ?? For example, a man wants to work in order to make money and he wants to enjoy his work. He finds two jobs, one which pays extremely well but the work absolutely sucks and the other which pays peanuts but the work is absolutely amazing.

What happens now ?? People, depending on individual preference, will take up one of the two jobs. This is not the best of examples for the discussion at hand, but still I'll try and explain as best as I can. The problem with this example is, the guy who picks the job which pays better is serving a recurring need. The need for money is completely and absolutely inelastic. No matter what else changes, there will always be a need for money which will absolutely need to be satisfied.

So he hates his job, but does it anyway because he needs the money. Doing something inspite of not liking it is not a great feeling. The dissatisfaction from this compulsion keeps mounting with every passing day and ultimately one fine day it will surpass the satisfaction that is derived from the money he is making. There is some truth in the "Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility". After all, it is empirically proven.

When that day comes, what do you think will happen ? One of three things, I say. One, he quits and moves to another job which he likes better but pays a lot lower. Two, he puts up with the frustration, takes is out on his family & friends and continues with the job. Three, he finds another job which he doesnt hate as much, but at the same time doesnt pay that much lower. One of his needs is either ignored or both his needs are compromised.

This is a simple example with just two needs. Extrapolate to a real life situation which has a zillion needs cropping up from every nook and corner. How can anyone possibly handle this situation ? There will always be some amount of dissatisfaction. There will always be some amount of depression. There will always be some amount of hate.

Pareto's law applies. 80% of happiness comes from 20% of activities.

Of course, every rule has exceptions. There will be people who only do what they love and with no compromise.

We all live in the hope of becoming part of that exception.

An exception where 100% of satisfaction comes from 100% of activities.