Vaniver comments on Things I Wish They'd Taught Me When I Was Younger: Why Money Is Awesome - Less Wrong

32 Post author: ChrisHallquist 16 January 2014 07:27AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (234)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vaniver 16 January 2014 06:59:50PM 2 points [-]

Surely if people are made less unhappy by a luck-based distribution, that's an argument in favor of a luck-based distribution?

I view it as an argument against the preferences of people.

Comment author: Error 16 January 2014 10:03:10PM 0 points [-]

So you did mean it as written. I'd kind of like to see the studies, if you have a link. I don't find it surprising, exactly, but it's not a question I'd considered before, and it seems like it would be amusing misanthropy fuel.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 17 January 2014 02:30:12PM *  5 points [-]

Maybe people don't actually believe in merit, in near mode. Maybe they think they do, but they are really thinking about status.

Distributions based on merit (that we don't recognize instinctively) simply seem unfair. Distributions based on tranparent luck seem like everyone at least had a fair chance.

Maybe the real problem with money is that it usually belongs to people we personally don't know, so we don't know what exactly they did and why exactly should we respect them, so it feels like they really don't deserve the money. And the rest is rationalization.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 22 January 2014 04:48:33AM 1 point [-]

Maybe people don't actually believe in merit, in near mode. Maybe they think they do, but they are really thinking about status.

This is made worse by money anti-correlating with status when all other variables are controlled for, i.e., given two otherwise comparable jobs, the lower status one will pay more.