= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on Some counterevidence for human sociobiology - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (28)
There's an obvious problem with this argument as the risky jobs are not the high paying ones. Correlation between risk and payoff seems to be negative, not positive. And neither does violent crime pay much.
As an particularly extreme example of both, drug dealing in States is extremely risky (death far more likely than in military in Iraq, then risk of less than lethal violence, and imprisonment) and extremely unprofitable (wages far lower than minimum wage) behaviour. [ famously described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics ]
There is a real risk premium for jobs. Yes, high income jobs are less physically risky, but that isn't the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is to other low skill jobs. So, for example, lumberjacks get paid more than doormen.
I think Freakonomics supports the opposite view about risk and why low level drug dealers take it. It's the small chance of a huge payoff that motivates them, even though most of them end up living with their mothers.