Re:The Economics of Status (2006)
by lumberjack on Monday March 06, 2017 @07:44AM
(#13802294)
Relative status is what matters. The author, being an extreme libertarian, is uncomfortable with that idea, because he doesn't want to admit that relative wealth and wealth inequality, matter.
Re:The Economics of Status (2006)
by paulpauper on Monday March 06, 2017 @08:11AM
(#13802410)
Going though the comments, it seems like few agree with the the article, yet it has been up-voted to the front page. I guess the people who are voting are different from those who are commenting. People who like the article are less inclined to comment, but rather vote.
Re:The Economics of Status (2006)
by icebraining on Monday March 06, 2017 @08:43AM
(#13802552)
One might upvote for different reasons rather than agreement. I've upvoted submissions because I disagreed but still found an interesting argument, or because it generated a good discussion in the comments.
If a number of people are competing with you, your relative status within the group is an important factor for determining winning conditions.
If ten people are competing for one job, none of them have any reason to care about an effect which, say, increase the education-level of all of them. But each might be willing to take a class if it increased their chance of getting the relative to the other.