Look-At-Me Pet Peeve: Cost Prohibitive
21. Dec, 2010 
7 Comments
Look at Me!
I’ve discovered a trend in my pet peeves. They’re generally not about “misuse” of English, or even punctuation (like unnecessary apostrophes), but about a writer suffering from “look-at-me.”
The writing is about the writer trying to sound intelligent (or clever) rather than trying to communicate.
Bad…
Today’s edition: “Cost prohibitive” and its even worse cousin, “too cost prohibitive.”
For those playing at home, “cost prohibitive” means “too expensive.” The cost is so high that you cannot pay it.
This is a fun little phrase that has a place in articles where the writer is playing around and having fun. It’s fun to use it when you’re purposely enjoying being formal in a military-speak kind of way.
And, while I’m speaking of virtues, I think there are occasionally times when the phrase “too expensive” doesn’t imply the same thing as “so expensive that I’m prohibited from buying it.” Sometimes you find something too expensive, but after thinking about it, you decide to buy it anyway.
So I can see a time and place to say “cost prohibitive.” Your audience and you are enjoying the ride, and nothing very important is being said.
“Option B was cost prohibitive.”
But most of the time, if you must show the strong role that the cost is playing, you’re probably safer saying, “option B was more than we could afford.”
Or really, you can almost always go back to the slightly weaker implications of: “Option B was too expensive.”
And even worse…
We’ve just established that “cost prohibitive” means that the cost prohibits you from buying the thing. So reading that something is “too cost prohibitive,” let’s me know that the writer has a bad case of “look-at-me.”
When a phrase with three words means exactly the same thing as a phrase with two words, then something’s probably wrong. In this case, what’s wrong is that the two-word phrase isn’t clear even to the writer.
And since the bloated and showy phrase wasn’t clear, the writer felt the need to augment it rather than delete it. Bad call.
And the mac-daddy
This morning, searching around to see how people use “cost prohibitive,” I found this gem as the header of a conversation thread:
Powerline finally non-cost prohibitive.
Yes. “Non-cost prohibitive” must be better than, “affordable.” (Let’s forgive the wacky hyphen. I sometimes use hyphens in a wacky way myself, so I won’t throw stones.)
Harumph!
Do you have any “look-at-me” pet peeves?
See:
My earlier post: Words can say a lot about you, but don’t let them
No auto-generated related posts.
Some of my pet peeves:
“Impact” as a synonym for “affect” or “influence.”
“Interface” as a verb.
Empty phrases like “in order to” or “in order that” or “to the extent that.” They remind me of a student who’s been assigned to write a 300-word essay.
Substituting abstract names for real ones, for example “The service provider will interface with the client organization to the extent that the client’s experience is impacted in a non-cost prohibitive manner.” Oof!
This is not a pet peeve, but worth correcting anyway.
You said, “Non-cost prohibitive” must be better than, “affordable”, as if they mean the same thing, which they do not.
The definition of “affordable” indicates that you intend to charge for something, and that the amount will presumably be less than a competing product, service, thing, etc. While “Non-cost prohibitive” can include any price range from infant to free depending on your target buyer. What may be cost prohibitive to one person may not be so to another. Non-cost prohibitive also hints at the notion that your competitor is intentionally making said service, product, thing, etc. unaffordable.
A great example of this in action would be higher education. A lot of people would love to see higher education become more affordable, as where I would love to see it become non-cost prohibitive.
EntrepreNerd: Thanks for your comment.
If I read you correctly, then I disagree with you.
To me, the term “affordable” doesn’t imply anything about how much a competitor charges for the same item, or even that there’s a competitor at all.
It just means that the person using the term considers it a reasonable price, or one that he or she can afford.
And, as you say is the case for “cost-prohibitive,” what’s affordable to one person may not be affordable to another.
I also disagree that there’s any hint of purpose behind “cost prohibitive.” It just means that it’s too expensive to afford.
Yes, some ways of using “affordable” are different from “non-cost prohibitive.” You used “more affordable,” which just means “cheaper.” If you had said that people want “affordable higher education” (without saying “more”), then it would just mean the same as “non-cost prohibitive,” but without the syllables and faux precision.
So I can’t accept your correction, but I do understand that people use these terms differently, and I appreciate your letting me know how you use them. I’m sure you’re not alone!
Cost-prohibitive means that a solution is possible but the financial burden of it may be significantly greater than the benefit, which implies intent. A choice made based on reasons that extends beyond the constraints of afford-ability. If it were simply a matter of having the money or not you would use “affordable” instead of “cost-prohibitive.”
No, I don’t think so.
1. The definition you use (lifted, I think, from the extremely unreliable answers.com) is incorrect.
2. Even given that incorrect definition, there’s still no implication of intent.
To me, cost-prohibitive means that you are prohibited from doing something because of the cost. It’s that simple and there’s no other implication.
If you can provide a reliable source claiming that the definition is different from the obvious one, then let’s talk about it.
Otherwise, what’s the point? You say it means one thing and I say it doesn’t.
My only issue here is that you seem to think that “affordable” and “non cost-prohibitive” mean the same thing. Simply adding the words “non cost” to the word “prohibitive” does not change the definition of the word. Hence, Cost-prohibitive has nothing to do with being able to afford something. It is completely a matter of the cost not out weighing the means. You can still afford to do something cost-prohibitive, it would be unwise financially, but if you have the money, thus affording it, there is little to stop you.
You seem to be a very smart fellow so I will stop pestering you about it. At the end of the day convincing a stranger of the definition of a word should not be that high on our priority list.
———————————–
Prohibitive Defined
———————————–
pro·hib·i·tive (prō-hĭbˈĭ-tĭv)
-adjective
So high or burdensome as to discourage purchase or use: prohibitive prices.
———————————–
Affordable Defined
———————————–
af·ford·a·ble [uh-fawr-duh-buhl]
–adjective
that can be afforded; believed to be within one’s financial means.
Yeah, look, we disagree and I don’t think it makes sense to go on about it. You choose your definitions and I’ll choose mine.
Mine include a definition of prohibit and prohibitive that mean something more severe than yours.
If you want to go around using terms like “non-cost prohibitive” instead of something easier to pronounce, write, read, and understand, then go for it.
I think it’s bad writing and poor communication, but I’m not your boss or your mom. When I see the term, I’ll exchange it for one that’s better.