The Myth of Mining

[InfamousDS]

Who believes in it? If you've never heard it....

Courtesy CTownWoody of FFXIclopedia:

The Myth of Mining: Mining does not save you gil when crafting. Mining makes you gil by selling what you mine; crafting makes you gil by increasing the value of the ingredients. If you were to mine up 10k worth of ingredients and sell them for 6k, you did NOT save 6k by mining; you lost 4k by crafting what you could have sold.

Whereas I feel this:
By mining, you did not spend 10k, therefore you did NOT lose 4k. In terms of tangibility, I'd rather lose the imaginary 4k over the real 4k any day.

Profit:
Market Value - Cost of Labor/Materials
In the mining set-up, you spent 0 on materials (in the original myth, realistically there is pickaxe costs and crystal costs). Therefore, 6k = 6k - 0.
In the buying example, -4k = 6k - 10k (using the above).

This forum post comes from a talk segment of a guide I've written on the wiki, where I debunk the myth. However, my counter-argument presents valid points. I'd like player opinion on this, as wiki talk pages are not meant for extensive discussions. Thanks.

[rog]

I understand what opportunity cost is, so no.

[wish12oz]

Has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Kagato]

Time is money.

Mining is a waste of time, so it's a waste of money.

[rog]

Time is money.

If you spend a few hours mining 10k-50k worth of ores when you could just guild-buy and craft stuff immediately, chances are you'll make more.

Iron Ingots, for example, take 4 Iron ores. I've gone mining in some places that have the highest drop rates of Iron ores and managed to get 12 ores in 30 minutes. Thats 6 Ingots an hour, a full stack in 2 hours. So, therefore, depending on server prices, thats 40k straight profit in 2 hours for a single stack.

or...

I camp the guild and buy/craft and make several stacks every in-game day, making only about half the money because I buy all my materials, but I make MORE stacks and by selling more in a shorter time, I make more overall in the same time I would have made if I just ran around mining stuff.

Or...

I farm beastmen blood and get the same profits in half the time. :/




Smithing really sucks, doesn't it? :/

That is not even the point. After you mine, your time is already gone. However at that point you have a choice. You could either sell the materials for 10k, or craft them, and sell the result for 6k. If you choose to do anything with the ores that does not result in the highest possible profit, you lost the difference between what you got out of it, and would you could have got out of it.

And yes, you do in fact lose it. Before synthing the ores, you have 10k worth of assets. After synthing them, you have 6k worth of assets. That is the definition of a loss.

[InfamousDS]

@Kagato

I see the myth as an affront to farming actually, as the same logic can be applied. Of course, Woody isn't known for his love of farming anything but Rams, so he could easily apply the same logic. The biggest disparity between the 2 realms is that ores are incredibly expensive compared to similar-level items in other fields. I mine for skill-ups because I can avoid counter-campers at the guild, or I used to before I started a college degree. I just don't want HELM to be ignored entirely, as that is what the original myth suggests you should do unless you are a profiteer.

[rog]

I just don't want HELM to be ignored entirely, as that is what the original myth suggests you should do unless you are a profiteer.

No it does not. If you can make more money per unit time by mining, then you should do that. If you can make more by doing something else, you should do that.

If you would be better off doing X instead of Y, then you should not do Y.

Take an economics class, this is not hard stuff.

[InfamousDS]

No it does not. If you can make more money per unit time by mining, then you should do that. If you can make more by doing something else, you should do that.

If you would be better off doing X instead of Y, then you should not do Y.

Take an economics class, this is not hard stuff.

Funny you should say that, I asked my economics professor this question, as well as 2 business professors and an accounting post-grad. They all say that the only loss is time and time doesn't have any qualitative cost unless one is imposed upon it. Like I said originally, the counter-arguments are valid.

[rog]

Funny you should say that, I asked my economics professor this question, as well as 2 business professors and an accounting post-grad. They all say that the only loss is time and time doesn't have any qualitative cost unless one is imposed upon it. Like I said originally, the counter-arguments are valid.

You asked the wrong question then. If you do something, and then your net value is lower than it was before you did it, you lost money.

The entire proccess is indeed profitable, but it is not as profitable as it could be, and the last step is simply retarded.

[InfamousDS]

I presented the argument exactly as it presented to you rog. I tried very hard to avoid personal bias, one of my friends (not expecting a job in such fields and thus not in classes about them) called labeling the potential loss as "greed, if they cared that much about money, they wouldn't pay to play".