expired Posted by cnmuranjan • Last Thursday
Apr 24, 2025 11:42 PM
Item 1 of 1
expired Posted by cnmuranjan • Last Thursday
Apr 24, 2025 11:42 PM
Pizza Hut Stores: Large Menu Price Pizza (Various)
+ Free CarryoutBuy 1, Get 1 Free
Pizza Hut
Visit Pizza HutGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Top Comments
47 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Where do you live, Nebraska? In Cali, it's $22.
Let's assume all your math is right. That means you get higher CPP value on pizza redemption than on pasta redemption. But Imagine that I like pasta but don't like pizza. Now it's completely is irrelevant what the CPP is. For 60 points, I can get something I like (pasta) or something I dislike (pizza). This is why you are incorrect when you say "best return on money spent."
From the customer's perspective, the best return is this: How much ENJOYMENT can I get for the amount of money/points I spend?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Now, if you were writing...$20 or $21.50; I am there! I could afford BOGO on that on $7.25/hr. If I am living in California where the wage is $16.50, even easier. I have a decent job and I could make that last over days. What I do not understand is how some people complain, making $16.50/hr. how they cannot afford a $24.75 pizza. It makes me wonder if they are being underpaid. No, if you do not live where the wage is $7.25/hr., you are not going to get a $5 pizza. Never happen! In fact, it would not be unheard of to pay $10.59 for a large pizza in that state where the wage was $7.25/hr.
next would be pizza hut in terms of shittiness but it's always pricey for no reason, same with Papa John's - trash pizza at a high price for no reason even with their "deals"
Pizza Hut is going down the tubes how did they find the money to pay for a front page deal on Slickdeals?
The objective math is true BEFORE consumption. This is true in your stock market example. Between two stocks, getting 10% is better than 4% assuming all else being equal (same vesting period). You exchange one currency (stock) for another currency (money) but you haven't CONSUMED anything yet. You are delaying consumption when you merely exchange currency for another currency. When you want to put your money in a savings account, the only thing that matters is objective math (%APY), but note that saving/investing money is still delaying consumption.
Let's extend your stock market analogy. If the only way I could redeem my pizza hut points was for money, then obviously I will do the math to see which option yields me the greatest ROI. But selling points for money is still pre-consumption (currency for currency). Money is still one step removed from me spending (consuming) it, in the same way that selling stocks for a higher yield merely delays my consumption of that money.
But when you consume, the thing that matters is subjective experience.
If I give you $10, will you spend the money on something you want or something you don't want? Notice that the only way we can answer this question (i.e., the only way we can extract the maximum value of $10 for you AND ONLY YOU) is if we consider how much subjective joy your purchasing decision will bring you. What you "want" FOR CONSUMPTION is necessarily subjective.
This is why subjective experience is the fundamental thing that matters when you assess the value of consumption. The ratio that matters is the amount of joy relative to the currency amount you spend. Half the equation is subjective joy.
When you redeem points, you are now consuming the points. Pick what brings you the most joy, and not what yields the highest CPP.
But other people don't get that excited. This is why it's subjective when it comes to consumption and spending. If you get joy from toughing it out, that's totally cool! Respect.
This is why I still stand by my previous statement (that you found "hilarious"): "How much ENJOYMENT can I get for the amount of money/points I spend?
Spend=consume. For some, that's pasta. For you, is CPP. It's okay for people to like different things 🙂.
What is being stated is a justification to ignore all that. I will agree to disagree.
FYI: If I measured everything that I bought on joy, I would be broke. Try that for a house, car, insurance, utilities, etc. No one buys insurances with joy or spending on utilities, with joy. What is this? What is even happening?
Speedway (never gave me heartburn)
All below give me heartburn, but ordered just by quality (cheese to bread ratio), taste, etc.:
Mad Mushroom
Papa Johns
Dominos
Pizza Hut
Little Caesar's
And it does seem like the people on this site love Domino's, KFC, Panera, Panda Express, Subway and Taco Bell (they all get high thumbs up, even when wage to market price of an individual item is over the actual cost to wage proportion).
They seem to hate Burger King, Dairy Queen, Fazoli's, McDonald's, Wendy's, etc. (pretty much anything other than the ones listed in the "like" sentence).
They actually do not mind spending large amounts of money on Chili's, Buffalo Wild Wings, etc. (which I thought the whole point of this site was to get food for as little as possible, but I guess not).
I try to be consistent (always buy one, get one free) or lower than $2.90 for an item so that way I hit all the wage thresholds and know I am getting food for the near best value.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
House=joy from safety. insurance=joy from warmth and light. Insurance=joy from peace of mind. When you pay for utilities, you are valuing the joy from warmth and light more than you value the $$$ you spent on it. When you consume anything, you hopefully value the joy from the consumption more than you value the money paid for that consumption. If you ignore the value of joy from consumption, then that means all consumption is net loss.
Which brings me to the main point: Our disagreement is quite simple. You have a different definition of "value" that does not include benefit derived from consumption. My definition is the one that includes consumption. Most people, as well as mainstream economics, also includes consumption and subjective joy in value. Here's the very first sentence from mainstream economics wikipedia page:
Marginal utility, in mainstream economics, describes the change in utility (pleasure or satisfaction resulting from the consumption) of one unit of a good or service.
source: https://en.wikipedia.or
If I pay $10 to walk through a zoo, and I use your definition, then at the end of the day I have a net loss of $10. There is no argument there. In fact, with your definition, I have now wasted $10. Again, still no argument here: If we completely ignore subjective experience and instead calculate net gain and net loss, then all consumption=loss.
I want to explain why society includes subjective joy in "value". One could say I merely valued a nice visit to the zoo more than I valued the $10. The reason why people include joy in their calculation of value is because it also helps businesses determine the price of things. A zoo considers how much joy a potential customer will experience, and then the set their admission price such that customers are willing to "incur a loss of $10 in net worth" in order to experience joy. Because the zoo believes people value the joy from visiting a zoo more than they value the $10.
If you ignore subjective joy in undertanding value, then you are not able to fully explain why people would ever consume any goods and services at all. By focusing narrowly on objective math, all consumption=net loss. If that's your definition, you are limiting your ability to understand why people consume at all.