Talk:Willingness to pay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Unmerged[edit]

I unmerged the two concepts willingness to pay and willingess to accept. Both concepts are related, but still quite distinct from each other and deserve a separate treatment. Willingness to pay measures consumers maximum willingness to pay for a product whereas willingness to accept refers to the minimum amount of money, where a consumer would still accept to sell a product. That does not imply, that WTP and WTA are necessarily the same, either conceptually nor in absolute value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miller (talkcontribs) 06:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Very Similar to Willingness to Accept[edit]

This should be merged with Willingness to Accept. The two topics are rarely talked about separately and both are a result of Compensating and Equivalent Variation. Sean Patten University of New Hampshire

Willingness to accept payment for ending of one's life[edit]

Unlike WTA, WTP is constrained by an individual's wealth. For example, the willingness to pay to stop the ending of one's own life can only be as high as one's wealth, while the willingness to accept payment to accept the ending of one's life would be an extremely high number, perhaps approaching infinity.

To a sane person (defined here as a person who values their own life – otherwise, why expect payment at all? – and would generally be considered a rational actor, at least by academics), the number of this payment would not only approach infinity, it would be infinite; in other words: no payment would be high enough – or expressed differently, I submit that under no circumstances would a sane person (who values their own life and has no death-wish, as is presupposed in the scenario, after all) accept the ending of their life for payment or some other (material) compensation, perhaps unless it would provide a substantial financial or other (material) benefit to people or other beings or entities the person deeply cares about, such as their immediate family. After all, accepting payment would be pointless in this case as the payment would be useless to the person after their death! Seriously, this example is an excellent example for a hypothetical case not properly thought through. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)