Consider the cost of mediocre vs excellent allocation

Ask not just "is this worthwhile?" but "is this the best use of this resource right now?"

Why it works

Most decisions pass a minimal worth-it threshold: this job is okay, this project is useful, this commitment has value. But opportunity cost thinking asks a second question: given everything this resource could do, is this its best use? The difference between good and excellent allocation is the marginal opportunity cost — the gap between the chosen option and the actual best available alternative.

How to do it

1. After any commitment passes the basic "is this worthwhile?" test, ask the harder question: "Is this the best available use right now?"
2. List the two or three best alternatives this resource could serve.
3. Compare the chosen option not to "worthless alternatives" but to the genuinely best alternative.
4. Raise the bar: a "yes" should beat the best alternative, not just the threshold of worth doing.

Evidence

The distinction between adequacy thresholds and optimization is well established in economics and decision theory. Satisficing vs maximizing research (Simon) shows people typically use adequacy thresholds, which is rational in complex environments but can systematically under-allocate resources in simple ones. (mechanistic)

Maximizing against the best alternative has its own costs: analysis paralysis, regret, and missed sufficiency thresholds. The practice is most valuable when choices are few and high-stakes.

Sources

• Simon (1956), rational choice and the structure of the environment, Psychological Review

Common mistake

Treating anything positive as good enough, accumulating a life full of adequate choices that collectively crowd out the small number of truly excellent allocations.