Not really. There is the notion of opportunity cost. 30' might be worth your time, unless investing that time, either working, or even resting, paid you back e.g. > $50. If you expect yourself to make less than $50 an hour (assuming you have to drive back (?), otherwise $100) then that would be a good deal. It depends on your model of course. After some point spending 30' to get $50 off is crazy, if you are struggling to make time for your family.
Either the article does a poor job describing the research, or I find it somewhat incomplete. I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. I am curious how that affects the valuation between different groups of individuals.
The study asked some rich people "would you spend 30 minutes to save $50 on a $300 item". Some rich people said yes. Then they asked "would you spend 30 minutes to save $50 on a $1000 item". Some of the previous "yes" answers changed to "no". That is illogical, logically no one should have changed their answer.
Poor people didn't make this illogical answer change.
> I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent.
That's not how I read it -- the authors were not assigning a qualitative value to the items, only a quantitative one. They did not need to be the same 'type' of asset. It was just that when comparing the savings - 50/300 vs 50/1000 - some people considered the ratio more important than the numerator.
Either the article does a poor job describing the research, or I find it somewhat incomplete. I mean there is an inherent misconception that $1000 item/asset is much much better than a $300 equivalent. I am curious how that affects the valuation between different groups of individuals.