An actuarial can determine the cost of productivity, impacts on health, and the resources used. They can quantify this into a dollar amount. And if that value were … say … “a buck twenty-five” would they be wrong?
How you answer this question is important because it deals with crossing meta-cognitive boundaries. It’s a problem in the class of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems where logically self-consistent sets of axiomatic assumptions cannot validate themselves.
If a sunny day is happiness then happiness is worth a $1.25 makes perfect logical sense to you then you might need to work on your work-life balance. For most of us we intuit that even if a $1.25 (or $1,250 we’re just quibbling over magnitude) is actually the value of a sunny day it is only so in monetary terms.
When you build your products, ask yourself:
What the value of this [action|product|effort] is in terms of sunny days?
Is it just about dollar amounts? Is there more going on? When should you ignore one set of axiomatic terms in favor of another?
Are you a robot?