4 ms·

Here was my answer to a similar question on LessWrong: Bethany and I philosophically bite the bullet on this, which is basically ... the wealthy person gets th

by dreeves 13y ago

Here was my answer to a similar question on LessWrong: Bethany and I philosophically bite the bullet on this, which is basically ... the wealthy person gets their way all the time and the poor person gets what's to them a lot of money and everyone is happy. If that's unpalatable or feels unfair then I think the principled solution is for the wealthy person to simply redress the unfairness with a lump sum payment to redistribute the wealth. I don't think it's reasonable -- ignoring all the psychology and social intricacies, as I'm wont to do [https://xkcd.com/592/ https://xkcd.com/592/] -- to object both to auctions with disparate wealth and to lump sum redistribution to achieve fairness. Now that I'm introspecting, I suppose it's the case that Bethany and I tend to seize excuses to redistribute wealth, but they have to be plausible ones.

phillmv 13y ago
I think it's valuable as a method for resolving disputes. But I think you'll probably have to permanently redistribute wealth within your relationship or else I can imagine it breeding resentment. Cashflow is going to make a bigger difference in all the little disputes that will grow into bigger disputes. Or you could apply an inflation multiplier on your respective bets adjusted to the ratio of your respective incomes - but then the exercise may become moot as it renders it as less simple dispute settling mechanism. At the end of the day, you still have to apply some psychology above and beyond your auction market - the article concludes with >Recently Danny and Bethany haggled to see if he would drive her home after a long day of work or if she would have to ride her bike. She bet $15, and he intentionally "lost," so that he could do her the favor. :P
- dreeves 13y ago
  Here's the full story on that, as told by me and Bethany to the reporter: BETHANY: > Here's another example of real-world yootling: I worked late at the office yesterday and once all our beemergencies were dispatched, we had an auction over IM to see if Danny would come pick me up from the office or if I'd ride my bike / the bus home: > [IM transcript where sealed bids are revealed to be 15 (Bethany) and 14 (me); we have a hipchat bot to facilitate this] > So Danny came to fetch me, and I paid him 0 * 14 DANNY: > To clarify "drive you halfway home" was my way of offering to make it a joint decision whether to drive her home. So I'd either drive her home and she'd pay me something or I'd not drive her and pay her something. That probably sounds impossibly weird. The advantage is that I can offer the favor and the auction makes sure it only happens if she values it more than it costs me. Ie, it's the quantified equivalent of "are you sure? don't you need to get to sleep yourself?" etc. > Yootling to do her the favor is mathematically equivalent to doing her half the favor. Or you can think of it like this: I'm committing to either doing her the favor for less money than she values the favor, or to giving her an amount of money equal to how much she values the favor. > Again, the real point is just to make sure the favor only happens if it's actually socially efficient -- if it's not more skin off my nose than the favor is actually worth to her.
zorpner 13y ago
> the wealthy person gets their way all the time and the poor person gets what's to them a lot of money and everyone is happy. Rather than everyone being happy, this (historically) ends rather more often in bloody revolution. Personally, I believe that one rarely understands other people, and has no chance of understanding other people's relationships, so I'm disinclined to say that this is a bad idea. It's your relationship and I hope it works out well for you. But if anyone I knew told me that this is how they were operating, I'd have a hard time staying friends. Intimate relationships (romantic and otherwise) are based on releasing control and making compromises, and taking an accounting of everything in this way indicates not that you're being fair, but that you're not actually in a "relationship" per se.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Poor people getting what seems like a lot of money to them -> bloody revolution? When? It seems like bloody revolution normally follows poor people NOT seeing improvement in their standard of living.
  - zorpner 13y ago
    Typically, it follows the wealthy class saying "what seems like a lot of money to them" out loud.
    - jamesaguilar 13y ago
      I know you are trying to joke, but I was asking a serious question. I do not believe your claim is substantiated in the historical record. Revolutions do not typically occur when the standards of life for the poor are improving by virtue of receiving quickly growing pay.
      - zorpner 13y ago
        Fair enough, but I'm not joking either -- it's true that many revolts happen in the context of abject conditions, but it's more common for (particularly successful) revolution to occur in the context of a less-than-impovershed class (e.g. a merchant class) experiencing a collective realization that they're being systemically oppressed by the ruling class appeasing them with what the ruling class sees as a pittance that will pacify them. The French Revolution is the classic example of this phenomenon.

by dreeves 13y ago

phillmv 13y ago

I think it's valuable as a method for resolving disputes. But I think you'll probably have to permanently redistribute wealth within your relationship or else I can imagine it breeding resentment. Cashflow is going to make a bigger difference in all the little disputes that will grow into bigger disputes. Or you could apply an inflation multiplier on your respective bets adjusted to the ratio of your respective incomes - but then the exercise may become moot as it renders it as less simple dispute settling mechanism. At the end of the day, you still have to apply some psychology above and beyond your auction market - the article concludes with >Recently Danny and Bethany haggled to see if he would drive her home after a long day of work or if she would have to ride her bike. She bet $15, and he intentionally "lost," so that he could do her the favor. :P

dreeves 13y ago
Here's the full story on that, as told by me and Bethany to the reporter: BETHANY: > Here's another example of real-world yootling: I worked late at the office yesterday and once all our beemergencies were dispatched, we had an auction over IM to see if Danny would come pick me up from the office or if I'd ride my bike / the bus home: > [IM transcript where sealed bids are revealed to be 15 (Bethany) and 14 (me); we have a hipchat bot to facilitate this] > So Danny came to fetch me, and I paid him 0 * 14 DANNY: > To clarify "drive you halfway home" was my way of offering to make it a joint decision whether to drive her home. So I'd either drive her home and she'd pay me something or I'd not drive her and pay her something. That probably sounds impossibly weird. The advantage is that I can offer the favor and the auction makes sure it only happens if she values it more than it costs me. Ie, it's the quantified equivalent of "are you sure? don't you need to get to sleep yourself?" etc. > Yootling to do her the favor is mathematically equivalent to doing her half the favor. Or you can think of it like this: I'm committing to either doing her the favor for less money than she values the favor, or to giving her an amount of money equal to how much she values the favor. > Again, the real point is just to make sure the favor only happens if it's actually socially efficient -- if it's not more skin off my nose than the favor is actually worth to her.

zorpner 13y ago

> the wealthy person gets their way all the time and the poor person gets what's to them a lot of money and everyone is happy. Rather than everyone being happy, this (historically) ends rather more often in bloody revolution. Personally, I believe that one rarely understands other people, and has no chance of understanding other people's relationships, so I'm disinclined to say that this is a bad idea. It's your relationship and I hope it works out well for you. But if anyone I knew told me that this is how they were operating, I'd have a hard time staying friends. Intimate relationships (romantic and otherwise) are based on releasing control and making compromises, and taking an accounting of everything in this way indicates not that you're being fair, but that you're not actually in a "relationship" per se.

jamesaguilar 13y ago
Poor people getting what seems like a lot of money to them -> bloody revolution? When? It seems like bloody revolution normally follows poor people NOT seeing improvement in their standard of living.
- zorpner 13y ago
  Typically, it follows the wealthy class saying "what seems like a lot of money to them" out loud.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    I know you are trying to joke, but I was asking a serious question. I do not believe your claim is substantiated in the historical record. Revolutions do not typically occur when the standards of life for the poor are improving by virtue of receiving quickly growing pay.
    - zorpner 13y ago
      Fair enough, but I'm not joking either -- it's true that many revolts happen in the context of abject conditions, but it's more common for (particularly successful) revolution to occur in the context of a less-than-impovershed class (e.g. a merchant class) experiencing a collective realization that they're being systemically oppressed by the ruling class appeasing them with what the ruling class sees as a pittance that will pacify them. The French Revolution is the classic example of this phenomenon.