3 ms·

> 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 s

by 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 >

yummyfajitas 10y ago
If you manipulated consumption to be identical, you'd still have status - it'd just be based on good looks or other such things. In fact, realistically, status already is based on things like this. A friend of mine (roughly top 1-2%) complained to me last night that no matter how much effort he puts in, he still won't be as tall or non-bald as I am. And realistically, a hot woman earning $25/year has much higher status than both of us 1-2%ers. I hardly think it's that simple. It was your theory that being the richest person in the neighborhood raises your status, not mine. I'm glad we've mutually rejected that theory. Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places. Why do you believe that they do so for status rather than for other amenities (e.g. access to jobs, NY/LA lifestyle, a desire to be near people they identify with)? If you are really concerned about such things, the right solution is a pigouvian signalling task - apply a tax to status goods to internalize the externality. E.g., we should tax things like education, suits, good looks, and loudly criticizing Trump on twitter/facebook.
- p4wnc6 10y ago
  > If you manipulated consumption to be identical, you'd still have status - it'd just be based on good looks or other such things. I feel like you didn't really read my comment. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? The premise is that people receive body or mind alterations to suppress natural advantages or enhance natural flaws in order to make everyone equal. I was already accounting for consumption being generalized to something like the advantages or good looks or a quick wit in my comment before. > I'm glad we've mutually rejected that theory. This is a bit glib, almost antagonistic, of you. The Last Place Aversion literature I linked provides direct evidence that at least a mild form of the effect I described exists, so I certainly don't reject it. All I'm saying is that, like all simple theories, it's not perfect. There are situations where being high status among poor is better than being low status among rich. I am not saying anything more specific. Regarding the signaling tax -- I mostly do agree. I think we should use the same governmentally forced redistributive procedures that we apply to income or wealth and also apply them to sex, good looks, loneliness/social connection wealth, etc. It's just too ingrained in our primitive morality to view these as acceptable. And I think that stems from another hypothesis from Hanson, in his blog post "Inequality talk is about grabbing" -- basically that we focus on monetary redistribution instead of say sex experience redistribution because we believe it's easier for us to use coalition politics to take what we want in terms of money, whereas we less believe it would work for sex, and for some other things, like, say, true love redistribution, we could not really even know if we were successfully grabbing what we wanted.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    You're right, I didn't fully understand your comment. I haven't read Harrison Bergeron and didn't realize he actually bit that bullet. I agree that a mild form of status seeking exists (e.g. last place aversion), but I was taking issue with the strong form. Personally, I don't bite the bullet of extreme redistribution myself. There are a few forms of harmful signalling I'd favor taxing (e.g. educational certification) and a few forms of negative signalling I'd favor subsidizing/regulating (e.g. mandatory paternity tests), but generally I think we just need to accept accidents of birth/luck/etc and should only apply minimal interference in extreme cases. I raise this more as a reducto-ad-absurdum than something I actually advocate.

by p4wnc6 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

If you manipulated consumption to be identical, you'd still have status - it'd just be based on good looks or other such things. In fact, realistically, status already is based on things like this. A friend of mine (roughly top 1-2%) complained to me last night that no matter how much effort he puts in, he still won't be as tall or non-bald as I am. And realistically, a hot woman earning $25/year has much higher status than both of us 1-2%ers. I hardly think it's that simple. It was your theory that being the richest person in the neighborhood raises your status, not mine. I'm glad we've mutually rejected that theory. Deluded people move to New York and LA frequently, often to their own detriment, because of the status of residing in such glamorous places. Why do you believe that they do so for status rather than for other amenities (e.g. access to jobs, NY/LA lifestyle, a desire to be near people they identify with)? If you are really concerned about such things, the right solution is a pigouvian signalling task - apply a tax to status goods to internalize the externality. E.g., we should tax things like education, suits, good looks, and loudly criticizing Trump on twitter/facebook.

p4wnc6 10y ago
> If you manipulated consumption to be identical, you'd still have status - it'd just be based on good looks or other such things. I feel like you didn't really read my comment. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? The premise is that people receive body or mind alterations to suppress natural advantages or enhance natural flaws in order to make everyone equal. I was already accounting for consumption being generalized to something like the advantages or good looks or a quick wit in my comment before. > I'm glad we've mutually rejected that theory. This is a bit glib, almost antagonistic, of you. The Last Place Aversion literature I linked provides direct evidence that at least a mild form of the effect I described exists, so I certainly don't reject it. All I'm saying is that, like all simple theories, it's not perfect. There are situations where being high status among poor is better than being low status among rich. I am not saying anything more specific. Regarding the signaling tax -- I mostly do agree. I think we should use the same governmentally forced redistributive procedures that we apply to income or wealth and also apply them to sex, good looks, loneliness/social connection wealth, etc. It's just too ingrained in our primitive morality to view these as acceptable. And I think that stems from another hypothesis from Hanson, in his blog post "Inequality talk is about grabbing" -- basically that we focus on monetary redistribution instead of say sex experience redistribution because we believe it's easier for us to use coalition politics to take what we want in terms of money, whereas we less believe it would work for sex, and for some other things, like, say, true love redistribution, we could not really even know if we were successfully grabbing what we wanted.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  You're right, I didn't fully understand your comment. I haven't read Harrison Bergeron and didn't realize he actually bit that bullet. I agree that a mild form of status seeking exists (e.g. last place aversion), but I was taking issue with the strong form. Personally, I don't bite the bullet of extreme redistribution myself. There are a few forms of harmful signalling I'd favor taxing (e.g. educational certification) and a few forms of negative signalling I'd favor subsidizing/regulating (e.g. mandatory paternity tests), but generally I think we just need to accept accidents of birth/luck/etc and should only apply minimal interference in extreme cases. I raise this more as a reducto-ad-absurdum than something I actually advocate.