3 ms·

MMmh ... there's no wealth creation function anywhere. Is Peter assuming that economy is a zero-sum game? Or is he assuming that the simulation is unaffected b

MMmh ... there's no wealth creation function anywhere. Is Peter assuming that economy is a zero-sum game? Or is he assuming that the simulation is unaffected by working with normalized numbers? My gut says both assumptions need to at least be justified. I'd be happier to see an actual wealth creation mechanism added. Also, the final metric (Gini coefficient, aka the jealousy index), how much does it actually to speak to individual's happiness? A rather controversial choice: happiness is probably much correlated to absolute rather than relative wealth, something Gini entirely fails to capture.

dagw 7y ago
happiness is probably much correlated to absolute rather than relative wealth Studies show that it's much more complex than that. Basically both are always a factor, but if you're below a certain level absolute wealth is the most important factor, but once a above a certain level relative wealth dominates[1]. The level where the switch over happens differs quite a bit between countries and places, although most studies looking at salary seem to put it in the $75k-$120k/year range for the US. All that being said most studies also find that income/wealth (both absolute and relative) have relatively small impact on overall happiness when compared to other factors. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-007-9217-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-007-9217-0
anoncake 7y ago
> Is Peter assuming that economy is a zero-sum game? Of course production is also part of the economy but that is not what he's modelling. He's modelling the distribution of the wealth created. Of course you could model positive-sum trades but that just affects how much wealth is distributed after in each transaction, not how. > A rather controversial choice: happiness is probably much correlated to absolute rather than relative wealth, Absolutely not. Else our ancestors would all have died of depression in the stone age.

dagw 7y ago

happiness is probably much correlated to absolute rather than relative wealth Studies show that it's much more complex than that. Basically both are always a factor, but if you're below a certain level absolute wealth is the most important factor, but once a above a certain level relative wealth dominates[1]. The level where the switch over happens differs quite a bit between countries and places, although most studies looking at salary seem to put it in the $75k-$120k/year range for the US. All that being said most studies also find that income/wealth (both absolute and relative) have relatively small impact on overall happiness when compared to other factors. [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-007-9217-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-007-9217-0

anoncake 7y ago

> Is Peter assuming that economy is a zero-sum game? Of course production is also part of the economy but that is not what he's modelling. He's modelling the distribution of the wealth created. Of course you could model positive-sum trades but that just affects how much wealth is distributed after in each transaction, not how. > A rather controversial choice: happiness is probably much correlated to absolute rather than relative wealth, Absolutely not. Else our ancestors would all have died of depression in the stone age.