3 ms·

> but this whole story is more of a parlor trick than anything else I don't think it is really. You're right in saying that 2/3 and 3/2 are the right numbers

> but this whole story is more of a parlor trick than anything else I don't think it is really. You're right in saying that 2/3 and 3/2 are the right numbers to ensure that the population wealth stays the same. But the point of the exercise is to show that the population wealth can increase while the wealth of almost any individual in the population decreases. This is the author's jumping-off point to argue that the standard arguments in economics about average welfare can be far removed from the experience of any single worker in the economy.

kevinwang 3y ago
> You're right in saying that 2/3 and 3/2 are the right numbers to ensure that the population wealth stays the same. Quick correction: The article uses 0.6 and 1.5. In this setting, the population wealth increases and the wealth of almost any individual decreases. In the comment you replied to, they propose 0.66 and 1.5. In this setting, the population wealth doesn't stay the same, it increases even more than before. (In order for population wealth to stay the same, the payoffs should be 0.5 and 1.5)