4 ms·

Many people feel healthier when they are working, because it affords self-actualization and a sense of accomplishment. When employment conditions are so abject

by p4wnc6 10y ago

Many people feel healthier when they are working, because it affords self-actualization and a sense of accomplishment. When employment conditions are so abject that they render it a bad idea to accept employment, that doesn't necessarily mean people are happier not working. It just means they are happier not working vs. whatever the available working options are. If instead of trying to cut off their option to not work, forcing them to take jobs they hate whose mental health side effects in their lives aren't worth the money made, we instead cut off the option of offering jobs with properties that would be hated, then they may decide working is worthwhile. There are also a lot of status effects you don't explore. Being poor in America means that even if you have the purchasing power of the richest 5% in India, you're a total scumbag nobody for privileged people to shit on, hate, call lazy, etc. The effects of being embedded in that sort of social situation are significant. I'm even thinking of Robin Hanson's article "Cut Medicine in Half" and also "Showing That You Care" -- which indicate that status effects for health are very real. Being the richest person in a poor neighborhood can be better than being the poorest person in a rich neighborhood, even if your overall consumption ability is higher in the second case. I suspect this is likely true in this 5% American vs. 95% Indian example. Merely by having the status of being in the lowest 5% of the relevant social group you frequently interact with, that alone engenders negative life outcomes that can't be overcome just by raising the absolute consumption available to that 5% person. So I would definitely not characterize the overall quality of life of a 5% American as similar to that of a 95% Indian. It would be way more complicated than that. There are probably many 5% Americans with roughly better lives than 95% Indians. There are also probably many 5% Americans with absolutely worse lives than 95% Indians. And some with lives that are as bad as 5% Indians (in fact, I know some of those people in my home region of Appalachia). Regarding your last comment, I think drug use might be a relevant topic, because it is related to poverty (though, as always, it's complicated, good new data is hard to get [0]), and like mental illness, often creates a stigma against employment. There are many people in America who on paper may appear to have an amount of income that, in a worldwide sense, is very privileged, yet who nonetheless live lives that in some mental health or addiction adjusted QALY sense are some of the worst lives on the planet. [0] http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11165.pdf

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I agree that there are status effects, but status is a zero sum game. No matter what you do, 1/20 of the population will be stuck in the bottom 5%. A friend of mine suggests ethnic segregation might be a good way to handle this. If you are a Jain, you get to be at the very top of the Jain status hierarchy (and Muslims are at the bottom). And if you are Parsi, well, Parsis are awesome (just have more babies please!?!?!), so much better than the Jains. Aren't you lucky to be one? Being the richest person in a poor neighborhood can be better than being the poorest person in a rich neighborhood, even if your overall consumption ability is higher in the second case. If this were true, wouldn't the rich try and avoid each other and move to poor neighborhoods? In contrast, the poor would form gated communities with no rich folks allowed? Isn't that the exact opposite of what is observed?
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  > I agree that there are status effects, but status is a zero sum game. No matter what you do, 1/20 of the population will be stuck in the bottom 5%. This is silly. You could, in one extreme, just implement some kind of Harrison Bergeron system whereby everyone's consumption is literally manipulated to be equal with everyone else, including inhibiting natural talents or augmenting natural flaws as needed. More practically, you could pursue egalitarian political ideas instead of allowing resources to be allocated in response to market demands. I'm not saying I support those ideas, just that it's silly to say that status is a zero sum game. You just eliminate the whole game. > If this were true, wouldn't the rich try and avoid each other and move to poor neighborhoods? In contrast, the poor would form gated communities with no rich folks allowed? I hardly think it's that simple. Many people are convinced that increasing their status is a desperately necessary pursuit, and will put themselves at a disadvantage to do so. They may willingly accept a lower life span (supposing that was one of the health effects of being the least wealthy person in a rich community) to gain access to an intangible feeling of status and belonging to that community. Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places. If we imputed values from these actions, it would tell us that the pursuit of status effects was more valued than the pursuit of demonstrable health benefits. And I fully believe many people feel this way, and by extension, living in a situation that affords certain top-5% health benefits (like being poor in America) but which does not confer the status they want, is a form of perpetual misery. There's also research on Last Place Aversion that somewhat refutes what you're saying [0]. People who are in second-to-last place will oppose policies that make everyone unilaterally better off if those policies also move them from second-to-last into last place. They prefer a poorer world overall (even themselves poorer in absolute terms) so long as they are not the truly lowest status person. A world in which everyone (including them) is better off, but they rank last, is worse. [0] < http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 >

by p4wnc6 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I agree that there are status effects, but status is a zero sum game. No matter what you do, 1/20 of the population will be stuck in the bottom 5%. A friend of mine suggests ethnic segregation might be a good way to handle this. If you are a Jain, you get to be at the very top of the Jain status hierarchy (and Muslims are at the bottom). And if you are Parsi, well, Parsis are awesome (just have more babies please!?!?!), so much better than the Jains. Aren't you lucky to be one? Being the richest person in a poor neighborhood can be better than being the poorest person in a rich neighborhood, even if your overall consumption ability is higher in the second case. If this were true, wouldn't the rich try and avoid each other and move to poor neighborhoods? In contrast, the poor would form gated communities with no rich folks allowed? Isn't that the exact opposite of what is observed?

p4wnc6 10y ago
> I agree that there are status effects, but status is a zero sum game. No matter what you do, 1/20 of the population will be stuck in the bottom 5%. This is silly. You could, in one extreme, just implement some kind of Harrison Bergeron system whereby everyone's consumption is literally manipulated to be equal with everyone else, including inhibiting natural talents or augmenting natural flaws as needed. More practically, you could pursue egalitarian political ideas instead of allowing resources to be allocated in response to market demands. I'm not saying I support those ideas, just that it's silly to say that status is a zero sum game. You just eliminate the whole game. > If this were true, wouldn't the rich try and avoid each other and move to poor neighborhoods? In contrast, the poor would form gated communities with no rich folks allowed? I hardly think it's that simple. Many people are convinced that increasing their status is a desperately necessary pursuit, and will put themselves at a disadvantage to do so. They may willingly accept a lower life span (supposing that was one of the health effects of being the least wealthy person in a rich community) to gain access to an intangible feeling of status and belonging to that community. Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places. If we imputed values from these actions, it would tell us that the pursuit of status effects was more valued than the pursuit of demonstrable health benefits. And I fully believe many people feel this way, and by extension, living in a situation that affords certain top-5% health benefits (like being poor in America) but which does not confer the status they want, is a form of perpetual misery. There's also research on Last Place Aversion that somewhat refutes what you're saying [0]. People who are in second-to-last place will oppose policies that make everyone unilaterally better off if those policies also move them from second-to-last into last place. They prefer a poorer world overall (even themselves poorer in absolute terms) so long as they are not the truly lowest status person. A world in which everyone (including them) is better off, but they rank last, is worse. [0] < http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17234 >