6 ms·

1.) No, if the utility function of the poor wasn't flat, they would make some effort to address, not cure, a few bee stings. And in fact they do a

1.) No, if the utility function of the poor wasn't flat, they would make some effort to address, not cure, a few bee stings. And in fact they do address those bee stings - they booze and drug themselves into numbness. There's no point in curing anything less than all the bee stings, because of the huge drop-off in their utility function. Would it make any sense at all for you to attend 1/2 of medical school if you wouldn't eventually enjoy the pay-off of becoming a doctor? Would doing half the monumental amount of work to start a successful business make you rich? And yet you probably wouldn't think that you have a flat utility function, would you? 2.) This is only relevant if you make the flat-utility function assumption, which I don't think is true.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
If U(4 bee stings) > U(5 bee stings), a poor person would attempt to eliminate a bee sting since they would increase utility by doing so. The fact that there is a spike at x=0 bee stings is irrelevant, it does not make it pointless to go from 5 stings to 4, it just means that going from 1 to 0 makes you happier than going from 5 to 4. If Karelis asserts there is no utility gain in going from 5 to 4 bee stings, then Gain = 0 = U(4 bee stings) - U(5 bee stings), or U(4 bee stings) = U(5 bee stings). That's a flat utility function. Would it make any sense at all for you to attend 1/2 of medical school if you wouldn't eventually enjoy the pay-off of becoming a doctor? Would doing half the monumental amount of work to start a successful business make you rich? And yet you probably wouldn't think that you have a flat utility function, would you? You've just described exactly what a flat utility function means. U(0 years of med school) = U(half of med school). And similarly, there would be no harm in kicking people out of med school who would not finish anyway.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

If U(4 bee stings) > U(5 bee stings), a poor person would attempt to eliminate a bee sting since they would increase utility by doing so. The fact that there is a spike at x=0 bee stings is irrelevant, it does not make it pointless to go from 5 stings to 4, it just means that going from 1 to 0 makes you happier than going from 5 to 4. If Karelis asserts there is no utility gain in going from 5 to 4 bee stings, then Gain = 0 = U(4 bee stings) - U(5 bee stings), or U(4 bee stings) = U(5 bee stings). That's a flat utility function. Would it make any sense at all for you to attend 1/2 of medical school if you wouldn't eventually enjoy the pay-off of becoming a doctor? Would doing half the monumental amount of work to start a successful business make you rich? And yet you probably wouldn't think that you have a flat utility function, would you? You've just described exactly what a flat utility function means. U(0 years of med school) = U(half of med school). And similarly, there would be no harm in kicking people out of med school who would not finish anyway.

1.) No, if the utility function of the poor wasn't flat, they would make some effort to <i>address</i>, not <i>cure</i>, a few bee stings. And in fact they do a

1.) No, if the utility function of the poor wasn't flat, they would make some effort to <i>address</i>, not <i>cure</i>, a few bee stings. And in fact they do a