2 ms·
It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick winners and losers, but they're willing to lessen the gap between winners
by mehwoot 9y ago
It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick winners and losers, but they're willing to lessen the gap between winners and losers if it's too big.
Isn't that the same thing, just rephrased?
- humanrebar 9y agoI think the value implication in the analysis is different. An aversion to rank reversal applies value to rank stability itself. An aversion to picking winners and losers applies value to the selection process. You could argue that the signal is still strong if the winners made twice what others made, but that it's lost if wealth is wholesale shifted from the unfavored to the favored.
- meric 9y agoIt's notable this was a experiment from a Chinese university - in the 1950's and 1960's there was significant role reversals in Chinese society - landlords had their land confiscated, and those who resisted were rounded up and killed. This was followed up by the Great Leap Forward movement which ended up with millions dying from starvation.