02-09-2016, 06:02 AM
(02-09-2016, 05:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Pointing out your income levels is nonsense.No, it makes perfect sense when speaking to someone talking about dealing with lower image quality to save $40 a year. You get to a point where you don't care about $40 a year. Just like you get to a point where saving the $6000 buying the mid trim package I get on my trucks becomes trivial and you just buy the high trim package.
(02-09-2016, 05:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: Here's the thing: An LED TV will generally save you around $100 per year on your electricity bill if you use the TV a lot.What corner of your ass did you pull that info without source from?
(02-09-2016, 05:07 AM)SickBeast Wrote: That adds up over time. Over 5 years that means that my $550 TV will basically pay for itself based on the energy savings alone. It basically makes the TV effectively "free" compared to a plasma which would have cost the purchase price plus the $100 difference per year in cost. The longer you own the TV for, the more this adds up over time.
I thought you were a teacher? The figures I linked to were for 5 hours a day viewing time, how are you almost doubling the cost? You ever have to be at school? Do any work at home? Ever surf the net instead of watching tv?
I think your $100 a year difference is high, but even if it wasn't to have no motion blur, deep blacks/high contrast on reasonably priced tvs is worth $8/month.