3 ms·
I imagine in many contexts, the more 'relative status-quo' outcome to the original would be 4+4 to 2+2, double-or-no-change. Bob wanting more than to double cou
by karmakaze 5y ago
I imagine in many contexts, the more 'relative status-quo' outcome to the original would be 4+4 to 2+2, double-or-no-change. Bob wanting more than to double could be spiteful bargaining power which Alice could answer with spite.
- HWR_14 5y agoI saw it in the article and literally thought it was a straw man. I believed the author was arguing against a 6-6 division and introduced a more unbalanced shift to try to make their position seem reasonable. You're the first person I've seen suggest that this is a thing and I'm kind of shocked. What reasoning would there be for unequal division of the additional slices in A's favor?
- karmakaze 5y agoIt comes down to relative value of closing the deal. If both A and B want to increase their X, whatever it may be, an increase of 3 to A's 4 is not as much as 3 to B's 2 if we're talking about market share as an example. So already it's of more relative value for B to close the deal with +3's. Other factors apply. So it really comes down to how much each wants it, which is the status quo for negotiation. I don't think any business goes in saying "What's the fairest way we can make this deal?" As an edge case, let's say A has 1M, and B has 1k and there's 500k new units. Should B get 250k same as A? Would A go for that? Would B be happy with 100k?