But not everyone values it for a dollar? People who don’t buy burgers value them for less than a dollar,
Or they might not have the money to spare. Not all economic decisions are constrained by preference—there is a real point in life, occupied by a great many people even in the US, where the desire for a McDonald’s Cheeseburger is basically irrelevant to the fact that right now, you cannot afford it.
If you’re in that position, you could also probably really use it right now (since you have to be pretty broke to not be able to throw a dollar for a cheeseburger whenever you want); it might be the only food you get all day. I daresay someone who cannot reliably purchase a McDonald’s cheeseburger whenever they want to probably values it more, for its implication to their livelihood, than someone who has the money and eats lunch there every day.
Or they might not have the money to spare. Not all economic decisions are constrained by preference—there is a real point in life, occupied by a great many people even in the US, where the desire for a McDonald’s Cheeseburger is basically irrelevant to the fact that right now, you cannot afford it.
You don’t seem to be using the word “preference” in the same way I am (or economists do).
If I have only $2, and so can’t afford a $1 cheeseburger, then we say that I prefer $1 to a cheeseburger. You have a choice—either keep your $1, or get a cheeseburger—and you choose to keep your dollar. This seems perfectly clear.
In the extreme case, when everything you own and your labor is literally worth less than a cheeseburger, then this doesn’t exactly work: it may be that you would rather get a cheeseburger than a $1, so that you will buy a cheeseburger at literally the first opportunity. Very few people are this poor, and those who are don’t generally buy hamburgers as soon as they get $1. There are much better ways to spend a dollar: cheeseburgers aren’t worth $1 to the rational poor.
Now whether we interpret this as meaning that the poor care less about a cheeseburger, or as saying that they care more about $1, seems to me to be a question of semantics which no one cares about.
Or they might not have the money to spare. Not all economic decisions are constrained by preference—there is a real point in life, occupied by a great many people even in the US, where the desire for a McDonald’s Cheeseburger is basically irrelevant to the fact that right now, you cannot afford it.
If you’re in that position, you could also probably really use it right now (since you have to be pretty broke to not be able to throw a dollar for a cheeseburger whenever you want); it might be the only food you get all day. I daresay someone who cannot reliably purchase a McDonald’s cheeseburger whenever they want to probably values it more, for its implication to their livelihood, than someone who has the money and eats lunch there every day.
You don’t seem to be using the word “preference” in the same way I am (or economists do).
If I have only $2, and so can’t afford a $1 cheeseburger, then we say that I prefer $1 to a cheeseburger. You have a choice—either keep your $1, or get a cheeseburger—and you choose to keep your dollar. This seems perfectly clear.
In the extreme case, when everything you own and your labor is literally worth less than a cheeseburger, then this doesn’t exactly work: it may be that you would rather get a cheeseburger than a $1, so that you will buy a cheeseburger at literally the first opportunity. Very few people are this poor, and those who are don’t generally buy hamburgers as soon as they get $1. There are much better ways to spend a dollar: cheeseburgers aren’t worth $1 to the rational poor.
Now whether we interpret this as meaning that the poor care less about a cheeseburger, or as saying that they care more about $1, seems to me to be a question of semantics which no one cares about.