ThisSpaceAvailable comments on Decision Auctions aka "How to fairly assign chores, or decide who gets the last cookie" - Less Wrong

35 [deleted] 21 January 2014 09:13PM

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

Comments (57)

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

Comment author: ThisSpaceAvailable 23 January 2014 03:02:21AM 9 points [-]

Taking the word "afford" literally, if you can only afford $50 on the first auction, and you lose the auction, then you'll have an extra $50 on the next auction, and will be able to afford $100. If you lose that auction, you'll be able to afford $200 on the auction after that. I think that the concept you're thinking of is not so much afford, as marginal utility cost. For someone with a yearly income of $200,000, a marginal util is going to cost a lot more than for someone with a yearly income of $40,000. Thus, the richer person may be willing to bid more, because the utils are worth more to that person. It is therefore more efficient (that is, it is a Pareto improvement) for the richer person to win the auction, and give money to the poorer person that the poorer person can use to buy utils elsewhere. And I really wonder at who's deciding what goes in the Google Chrome spell checker dictionary, because apparently "util" is in it, but "externality" is not.

Comment author: jkadlubo 22 February 2014 03:24:32PM 0 points [-]

Could you elaborate your interpretation to the extreme, i.e. a classical marriage, with one person earning money and the other caring for home and children?

Comment author: Decius 28 February 2014 12:23:09AM 0 points [-]

One person earns money through work, and the other one stays home and earns money for all of the chores. The stay-at-home partner needs to bid high enough on e.g. childcare to pay half the rent, but not so high that other options become better.