Paying $1 extra for a better apple is worth it if you value the better flavor by at least that much. It shouldn't matter whether the choice is between $4 and $5 or between $10 and $11 - how did that dollar become less valuable, or the apple tastier?
"Humans act like money is proportionate when it's actually linear," is the crux of a wide variety of "surprising" microeconomic facts. People are more likely to drive across town to save money on a fancy pen that could cost $4 or $8 than they are to drive across town to save money on a suit that could cost $320 or $324.
(Yes, there are cases where there are good arguments that the utility of money isn't linear, but these are not those cases.)
Seems this would be counter-intuitive only in a vacuum; that is to say, were there no such thing as opportunity cost. Perhaps that's what you meant by "utility of money" not being linear. And, I agree with that point.
Where we differ is that I don't see how you are acknowledging that in only some cases. The degree may change, but not the underlying concept.
It is not like that. Because there is also quantity. Lets assume that good apples are $5, great $10 - for $10 I get one kg of great and 2 of $5. The great apple have to provide twice bang for the buck to be competitive.
If we slap 20$ tariff - for $30 bucks i get 1kg of great apples or 1.2 kg of good apples.
(That is assuming I want to eat roughly a kg of apples)
"Humans act like money is proportionate when it's actually linear," is the crux of a wide variety of "surprising" microeconomic facts. People are more likely to drive across town to save money on a fancy pen that could cost $4 or $8 than they are to drive across town to save money on a suit that could cost $320 or $324.
(Yes, there are cases where there are good arguments that the utility of money isn't linear, but these are not those cases.)