After a while, the house may hold sentimental value: it harbors memories and familiarity; it's a place to call home.
On the other hand, the 'costs' involve the harmful effects of the smoke: discomfort, lack of sight, health risks, and even psychological issues that may arise from the continual disturbance.
When the scales tip towards the costs, meaning that the costs outweigh the benefits, we could argue that there's too much smoke in the house.
Therefore, the amount of smoke in the house becomes relative, as it correlates to the benefits of the house.
In the same way, we could use the cost-benefit analysis to assess relationships, jobs, and personal endeavors to decide if they're too smokey and, thus, it's time to walk away.
The second one is the… Often, we remain in the smoky house, even when it's evident that we shouldn't.
The costs clearly outweigh the benefits and have been for a long time. But why do we stay?
The sunk cost fallacy suggests that people remain in such situations because of what they've already invested.
These investments could be time, effort, emotional dedication, or resources that we poured into that thing that's now harming us more than it benefits us. An excellent example of this is marriage.
Often, and justly so, people invest a lot in their marriages – take time alone: the years of our lives we've spent dedicated to our spouses.
