3 ms·
It would be great if you could (a) work through how that final distribution is more optimal and (b) explain why the number of men sums to 3 but the number of wo
by solidsnack9000 9y ago
It would be great if you could (a) work through how that final distribution is more optimal and (b) explain why the number of men sums to 3 but the number of women sums to 4.
- aidenn0 9y agoSorry, the numbers are a measure of talent; so from that table, if a man were to work a year in an "A" field, he would generate 1 unit of production, but if he were to work a year in a "B" field he would produce 2 units of production. A woman would produce 2 units of production regardless of whether it is in an "A" or "B" field. In many real-world cases you get diminishing returns for more production. Let's say it's a square-root return, so 16 units of production in "A" is twice as good as 4 units of production in "A" (if you do the math with other diminishing returns like logarithmic you see a similar outcome). Consider a population of 8 men and 8 women. If they are equally distributed between jobs there are 12 units of production of "A" and 16 units of production of "B" for a total value of sqrt(12)+sqrt(16) ~=7.5 units of total value. If instead all women work in "A" jobs and all men work in "B" jobs, then you will see 16 units of production in each, for a total value of 8 units. The most pessimal would be the reverse of that and it would generate ~6.8 units of value.
- solidsnack9000 9y agoThanks for explaining. That makes a lot of sense. I was obviously reading the table wrong and had a sense that there was a good explanation underlying things here, but no real intuition about it.