Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Kyle
Is this you? Claim Profile »
2 years ago
in What, Me Worry… about Inequality? on Will Wilkinson
Will - are you familiar with the concept of intentional community? The now-politically-incorrect term for them is hippie commune.
There is one just south of you in Louisa, VA called Twin Oaks. This collective formed for a lot of different reasons. But one of the professed goals of this commune is to isolate its members from the disparities in income that exist outside.
Why do people have a value for this?
They recognize that their sense of well-being is dictated not by some absolute measure of material well-being (they have "enough") but by the mere existence of people with more. No ipods, or mountain bikes, or computers unless everyone has equal access and thus is on the same level of meterial well-being.
So you may say - well good for them. The market provides. Only it doesn't. The wealth of the people from outside is not so easily isolated. It slips in. So we have market failure along the lines of an externality. Your being rich has material effect on the well-being of others. You can decry this as pathological if you wish, but envy is very real and is most likely an evolved characteristic of the human mind (and the minds of many other species).
So the Joneses problem is a coordination problem. Perhaps if we could all agree to stop driving forward beyond what is merely "enough" we might all be better off with the observed upper bound for human consumption being held down. But unilaterally, each is more than willing to push harder the more people hold back as it increases the chance he or she can be at the frontier of human happiness.
A perfect example is the mandating of longer holidays in Europe. You can only relax if you know we are all going to take a break together. Of course - the increasing material well-being of people like in the United States are undermining this process by demonstrating a higher potential for human happiness over here.
I am not saying that I am married to this idea. But I just want you to see where I coming from.
There is one just south of you in Louisa, VA called Twin Oaks. This collective formed for a lot of different reasons. But one of the professed goals of this commune is to isolate its members from the disparities in income that exist outside.
Why do people have a value for this?
They recognize that their sense of well-being is dictated not by some absolute measure of material well-being (they have "enough") but by the mere existence of people with more. No ipods, or mountain bikes, or computers unless everyone has equal access and thus is on the same level of meterial well-being.
So you may say - well good for them. The market provides. Only it doesn't. The wealth of the people from outside is not so easily isolated. It slips in. So we have market failure along the lines of an externality. Your being rich has material effect on the well-being of others. You can decry this as pathological if you wish, but envy is very real and is most likely an evolved characteristic of the human mind (and the minds of many other species).
So the Joneses problem is a coordination problem. Perhaps if we could all agree to stop driving forward beyond what is merely "enough" we might all be better off with the observed upper bound for human consumption being held down. But unilaterally, each is more than willing to push harder the more people hold back as it increases the chance he or she can be at the frontier of human happiness.
A perfect example is the mandating of longer holidays in Europe. You can only relax if you know we are all going to take a break together. Of course - the increasing material well-being of people like in the United States are undermining this process by demonstrating a higher potential for human happiness over here.
I am not saying that I am married to this idea. But I just want you to see where I coming from.
2 years ago
in Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? on Will Wilkinson
"Being less fortunate than some: not a plight. Not having enough: plight."
I am afraid I am too dense to recognize the distinction.
I don't want to drag you into a debate about something you have probably discussed ad nauseum. So just direct me via email to one of your past posts where you lay out this idea in more detail.
Specifically - what do you mean by "enough" and is the conception of "enough" a pliable cultural concept or an absolute measure of what is neccessary for survival.
Thanks, Will.
I am afraid I am too dense to recognize the distinction.
I don't want to drag you into a debate about something you have probably discussed ad nauseum. So just direct me via email to one of your past posts where you lay out this idea in more detail.
Specifically - what do you mean by "enough" and is the conception of "enough" a pliable cultural concept or an absolute measure of what is neccessary for survival.
Thanks, Will.
2 years ago
in Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? on Will Wilkinson
"If somebody has a bigger share than me, chances are they have made me better off, not worse off."
So what?
Are you completely unwilling to acknowledge that the proximate wealth, attractiveness, ability of another person may influence your level of contentment?
What drives you to earn if not dissatisfaction with your current level of consumption relative to others' you observe?
Likewise, do you not pity the retarded or the hideous or the poor?
I am with Dirk - must be something genetic.
It isn't about justice or fairness except for those seeking justification for change. It is just unfortunate that certain people have to spend their limited time alive in the presence of joy that they cannot know due to circumstance outside their control.
As a sometimes economist, I am well aware of the positive sum nature of markets and even think that income equality is a neccessary feature of growing economies. And yet I am still bothered by the plight of the less fortunate.
So what?
Are you completely unwilling to acknowledge that the proximate wealth, attractiveness, ability of another person may influence your level of contentment?
What drives you to earn if not dissatisfaction with your current level of consumption relative to others' you observe?
Likewise, do you not pity the retarded or the hideous or the poor?
I am with Dirk - must be something genetic.
It isn't about justice or fairness except for those seeking justification for change. It is just unfortunate that certain people have to spend their limited time alive in the presence of joy that they cannot know due to circumstance outside their control.
As a sometimes economist, I am well aware of the positive sum nature of markets and even think that income equality is a neccessary feature of growing economies. And yet I am still bothered by the plight of the less fortunate.
2 years ago
in Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? on Will Wilkinson
>>If somebody has a bigger share than me, chances are they have made me better off, not worse off.
2 years ago
in Why Do Economists Care About Inequality? on Will Wilkinson
That is an excellent point made by Schmidtz.
So let's redistribute income via luxury taxes / progressive consumption taxes instead.
Then we get even more captial investment and reduce the positional happiness issues.
So let's redistribute income via luxury taxes / progressive consumption taxes instead.
Then we get even more captial investment and reduce the positional happiness issues.
3 years ago
in A Declaration of Cognitive Independence? on Will Wilkinson
Tom Gilovich suggests that these sorts of biases are crucial to our not putting a shotgun in our mouth.
And I am inclined to agree.
I think even discussing confirmation bias is dangerous. So shhhhhh.
Of course - these effects may be very specific to personality types. That's what Barry Schwartz says anyhow.
I'll say this - nothing like a week with adoring undergrads to crank up the wholly undeserved confidence in one's own biases.
Great seeing you, BTW.
And I am inclined to agree.
I think even discussing confirmation bias is dangerous. So shhhhhh.
Of course - these effects may be very specific to personality types. That's what Barry Schwartz says anyhow.
I'll say this - nothing like a week with adoring undergrads to crank up the wholly undeserved confidence in one's own biases.
Great seeing you, BTW.
