# to be cost-effective versus to pay



## Baltic Sea

Witam wszystkich bardzo serdecznie!

It would be cost-effective for you to sell this house at a lower price.

It would pay for you to sell this house at a lower price.

Polskie tłumaczenie - wg mnie - brzmi: Opłacałoby ci się sprzedanie tego domu po niższej cenie.

Skoro wyrażenia "to be cost-effective" i "to pay" są synonimami, to czy można je stosować wymiennie.

Dziękuję. Źródło: wyobraźnia.


----------



## R.O

Hej!
Na pewno nie w każdym kontekście. Trzeba pamiętać, że "cost-effective" to słówko typowo biznesowe, więc w zdaniu "Opłaca się uczyć języków" chyba lepiej użyć "It would pay you..." niż "It would be cost-effective...". Natomiast w twoim zdaniu, wydaje mi się, słów tych można użyć zamiennie, z tym że ja zdecydowanie użyłbym "cost-effective", jako że zdanie ma wydźwięk marketingowy.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Baltic. Yes, I agree -- it really depends on the context. Also, in business-like writing you cannot use casual _ci_. You have to tell us where this excerpt is from. Another thing, I would replace _sprzedanie_ with an infinitive.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Dziękuję. Jakie inny synonimy "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." po angielsku możecie podać, używane w codziennej mowie?


----------



## R.O

"Profitable" is the first one that comes to my mind.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Do you mean "It's profitable for me to do something"?


----------



## LilianaB

_Beneficial_, perhaps, but which language are you translating it into? I thought it was English to Polish? _Profitable_ is Ok, if someone wants to make money on the sale.


----------



## R.O

I don't think "beneficial" works here. Still, we don't have a full context so it's difficult to pass judgments.


----------



## Baltic Sea

I would like to translate the phrase "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." into English, of course. Could you state some everyday phrases that convey the meaning of "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." in English, regardless of the variety (AE, BE, etc.).


----------



## audiolaik

Hi,

Which language should I use now because I'm a little bit confused.

I see nothing wrong with _cost effective_ as well as _economically viable._ Of course, the latter sounds definitely more professional, at least to me. The point is what you mean by _opłacać się_. If you mean bringing the best possible advantages in relation to cost, then don't hesitate and make use of _cost effective. _But if the intended meaning is slightly different (just producing a profit) then use _profitable._To me, both _cost effective _and _profitable_ sound equally business-like. 

A&AJnr

PS_ Financially beneficial_ sounds good enough?


----------



## LilianaB

Baltic Sea said:


> I would like to translate the phrase "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." into English, of course. Could you state some everyday phrases that convey the meaning of "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." in English, regardless of the variety (AE, BE, etc.).



_It may be really good for you to sell the house at a lower price_. (colloquial). _It may be beneficial (or profitable -- _depending on what kind of profit he gets_) for you to sell the house at a lower price_. (slightly more formall). I would not use _cost-effective_ here.


----------



## audiolaik

What about the following context: The owner of the house can't afford to maintain the property and turns to a financial advisor. They prepare some budget saving scheme. So, selling the house is part of a bigger plan, not a single financial operation. Would it change your opinion, LilianB?

If we reverse the situation (the owner doesn't sell the house, which affects his financial situation), can we say that this operation isn't cost effective? 

A&AJnr


----------



## LilianaB

This sounds really as if you were trying to stretch the meaning, or the usage of the word. I would personally only use the term in reference to production -- energy and time saving measures and things like that.


----------



## audiolaik

LilianaB said:


> This sounds really as if you were trying to stretch the meaning, or the usage of the word. I would personally only use the term in reference to production -- energy and time saving measures and things like that.



Thank you, LilianaB, for your answer. I've just looked up the word in a business English dictionary and found the following sentence:



> Private banking isn't cost effective for the consumer with less than about $200,000, as those customers can get most basic services at lower fees from regular banks.



source: Longman Business Dictionary 

Another dictionary, published by Oxford, suggests that one use the expression when discussing _methods_, _investments_ and _ventures_.

 Of course, I might be stretching the meaning or usage, as it usually refers to investing money, not saving.


----------



## dreamlike

Baltic Sea said:


> I would like to translate the phrase "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." into English, of course. Could you state some everyday phrases that convey the meaning of "opłaca /ci/ się zrobić ...." in English, regardless of the variety (AE, BE, etc.).



It would pay off to sell this house now, at a lower price. 

I strongly advise you against using the phrase from your first post, namely _"It would *pay for you* to sell this house at a lower price."
_First off, the usual way of saying it is 'it doesn't pay to'_._ Secondly, I'd use it in a different context, one that actually does not have much to do with money._

It doesn't pay to be nice these days. 
It doesn't pay to be wise. 
It doesn't pay to get angry. 
_
and so on and so forth 
_
_Of course, it might well be used in money-related contexts, but I rarely, if ever, see it used this way. 
_
_


----------



## Baltic Sea

Thank you all very much for all the answers and examples.


----------



## Baltic Sea

Thank you Dreamlike, too.


----------



## LilianaB

Perhaps you can say something like that; S_elling you house at  a lower price now may pay off in the long run_. I would still not use _cost-effective_ here. As to the examples from the _Oxford_ and _Longman Dictionaries: they _are perfect, but they are not the same as the proposed sentence related to the sale of the house.


----------



## R.O

As for "It would pay for you...", I think it should be "It would pay you to...". And I wouldn't say the negative version is usually used. However, as stated above, without further, more specific context we're unable to help.


----------



## dreamlike

R.O said:


> As for "It would pay for you...", I think it should be "It would pay you to...". And I wouldn't say the negative version is usually used.



My point was that the more common construction is "It (does not) pay(s) to be" rather 'it would pay you to', at least in my experience. I've just looked it up, and it is not necessarily so, but well...


----------



## Baltic Sea

I don't know which version is more correct. I can only guess that 'it would pay you to' is 100 %, but what about 'it would pay _*for*_ you to'. I found such structure in an English Grammar book whose author I don't remember. Is 'it would pay _*for*_ you to' version correct or not?


----------



## LilianaB

Maybe: _It may pay to sell your house now at a lower price_ (than lose all the money, if you wait too long).


----------



## Baltic Sea

Why, the version "It would pay for you..." I saw a few months ago was written by an author who is/was a native speaker.


----------



## dreamlike

Baltic, being a native speaker of English, or any other language, for that matter, means very little. There are different levels of language proficiency and more importantly, knowledge. 
How many Poles do you know with a poor grasp of Polish who say things that are not be imitated? I know quite a few of them.  

'It would pay for you to' sounds unnatural to me, if not plain wrong. You could start a thread about it the English forum, but you can rest assured that, as suggested by K.O., 'It would pay you to', no 'for', is a better option.


----------



## R.O

dreamlike said:


> How many Poles do you know with a poor grasp of Polish who say things that are not be imitated? I know quite a few of them.


The question is how many of them write textbooks? That is not to say, of course, that all English native speakers who write textbooks for learners are infallible but I'm sure their language proficiency is at least as good as that of Mr Average, if not better. Unfortunately, we don't even have the most important thing here, which is the title of that book and its author.


dreamlike said:


> 'It would pay for you to' sounds unnatural to me, if not plain wrong. You could start a thread about it the English forum, but you can rest assured that, as suggested by *K.O.*, 'It would pay you to', no 'for', is a better option.



Actually, I could've picked that nickname, it appears much stronger than R.O..


----------



## dreamlike

R.O said:


> The question is how many of them write textbooks? That is not to say, of course, that all English native speakers who write textbooks for learners are infallible but I'm sure their language proficiency is at least as good as that of Mr Average, if not better. Unfortunately, we don't even have the most important thing here, which is the title of that book and its author.


Well, I gathered from Baltic's post that he just come across a native speaker writing that somewhere on the internet, not necessarily in a textbook. Google yields several results for 'it would pay for you to', but their number is not large enough for me to believe it's idiomatic. 



R.O said:


> Actually, I could've picked that nickname, it appears much stronger than R.O..


My apologies!


----------

