3 ms·

Interesting that while I agree that the marginal value decreases I also feel (literally feel) that somehow having say an order of magnitude more would somehow b

Interesting that while I agree that the marginal value decreases I also feel (literally feel) that somehow having say an order of magnitude more would somehow be qualitatively different (and better). Funny to see my own biases play tricks (?) on me!

phamilton 10y ago
I think one could define a metric in which average result is higher for startup employees than for BigCo employees. Someone with $100M has access to politics/investments/etc that most people earning $250k/yr don't. So while the average monetary payout is smaller (1% chance at $100M is equal to a 50% chance at 2M), average social currency is much higher. (1% chance at the social power that comes with $100M vs 0% chance in the BigCo job).
- jwatte 10y ago
  You'll only make $100M of you're a founder of one of the very few really large, successful companies. It's a 1 in 10,000 chance or worse, not 1 in 10. (And mean value of $100M at 0.01% right now is only $10k)
djur 10y ago
Paradoxically, I think that you feel that way _because_ of the decreasing marginal value of money. Superfluous income is disposable income, and spending money in a way entirely of your choosing is pleasurable. Especially if you're already making enough to get by, the value of the money you're already making is "priced in" to your subconscious analysis. Thus, the next order of magnitude of income really is qualitatively different.
- superuser2 10y ago
  > Superfluous income is disposable income Only if you don't rent a nicer/closer apartment. (OTOH, lower commute times are associated with happiness).
- zachsnow 10y ago
  Of course, this is a good interpretation! Cheers.
arcticfox 10y ago
Unless you think that marginal value decreases at quite an exponential rate, an order of magnitude more would probably be noticeably better. That's a huge difference (e.g. the difference between minimum wage and well-to-do, between well-to-do and rich). Until maybe ~$100M net worth, for me personally, I think an order of magnitude difference would indeed be qualitatively different / better.

phamilton 10y ago

I think one could define a metric in which average result is higher for startup employees than for BigCo employees. Someone with $100M has access to politics/investments/etc that most people earning $250k/yr don't. So while the average monetary payout is smaller (1% chance at $100M is equal to a 50% chance at 2M), average social currency is much higher. (1% chance at the social power that comes with $100M vs 0% chance in the BigCo job).

jwatte 10y ago
You'll only make $100M of you're a founder of one of the very few really large, successful companies. It's a 1 in 10,000 chance or worse, not 1 in 10. (And mean value of $100M at 0.01% right now is only $10k)

djur 10y ago

Paradoxically, I think that you feel that way _because_ of the decreasing marginal value of money. Superfluous income is disposable income, and spending money in a way entirely of your choosing is pleasurable. Especially if you're already making enough to get by, the value of the money you're already making is "priced in" to your subconscious analysis. Thus, the next order of magnitude of income really is qualitatively different.

superuser2 10y ago
> Superfluous income is disposable income Only if you don't rent a nicer/closer apartment. (OTOH, lower commute times are associated with happiness).
zachsnow 10y ago
Of course, this is a good interpretation! Cheers.

arcticfox 10y ago

Unless you think that marginal value decreases at quite an exponential rate, an order of magnitude more would probably be noticeably better. That's a huge difference (e.g. the difference between minimum wage and well-to-do, between well-to-do and rich). Until maybe ~$100M net worth, for me personally, I think an order of magnitude difference would indeed be qualitatively different / better.