4 ms·
Nope. There's an entire income/asset range where the former isn't enough to justify passing up the latter. E.g. if you already have $3M+ in the bank, the margi
by groby_b 3y ago
Nope.
There's an entire income/asset range where the former isn't enough to justify passing up the latter. E.g. if you already have $3M+ in the bank, the marginal utility of that extra million is starting to diminish.
Now, a roll with a decent chance at $1B sounds much better.
And, flip side, if you have almost no money and almost no experience, you might also take the first one - because it leaves you with a 100% marketable set of skills that'll likely translate into much more than 1M.
- caconym_ 3y agoIf you have $3M in the bank then you are already a millionaire and the choice as framed above doesn't make sense anymore. It's not a 70% chance of being a millionaire—it's a 100% chance of being one already with a 70% chance of making another million which, as you say, looks a lot different to somebody who already has $3M than to somebody who has < $1M.
- thelastparadise 3y agoI think that's whst he's saying. You're saying what he's saying. There is no disagreement.
- groby_b 3y agoWhat she's saying :) We're rare, but women in tech exist. But otherwise, yes. I was pointing out that "everybody" isn't quite true.
- caconym_ 3y agoNo, I don't think we are in full agreement. In the part of my comment after "as you say", I did call out that her reasoning re: the marginal utility of $1M for someone who has $3M vs. ~$0 is (imo) correct, so we do have that common ground, but you ought to read the part of my comment before "as you say" and compare it to the context of the comments above it. You might accuse me of splitting hairs, but I think it's an important distinction in the context of vkou's comment and parents.