Maybe if we choose the cheaper option, we might have to buy it twice as it breaks down in a short time. But if we choose the option that lasts longer, we will not have to buy it twice, therefore, saving money in the long run.
Therefore, it might be a good choice to buy the option which we cannot "afford to buy twice" as we would not have to buy it twice anyway.
I could not buy everything twice that I currently have in my apartment. But I do not have to because I have chosen the option which lasts longer and which does not need replacement in a short time.
Price / Product Lifetime (Months) = Actual Cost per Month
If I buy a $3000 couch and it lasts 10 years, I paid $25 per month.
But then add the cost of time for finding another couch…
If I pay $900 for a couch that I need to replace in 3 years it also costs $25 per month, but I will need to get another couch after 3 years. I will have to spend time (which has more value than money imo) to find a suitable one.
So which one is the better option?