Money is like ninjas.

[crayzz]

Where do you get all those assumptions? It's equally true in my experience that rich people can be very generous, and poor people can be thrifty.

I think that's the point: that there is no meaningful signal between generosity and wealth.

[Nepene]

Where do you get all those assumptions? It's equally true in my experience that rich people can be very generous, and poor people can be thrifty.

I think that's the point: that there is no meaningful signal between generosity and wealth.

Yes, that was my point. You shouldn't assume that just because someone is rich or poor their generosity or valuation of money per dollar is different. They are independent variables.

[MysticWav]

Studies have shown that increased wealth is correlated with reduced empathy. It also shows that this effect is negated somewhat if you are wealthy, become poor, and then became wealthy again.

Now I'd think generosity and empathy are connected too, but that's just an assumption on my part.

[Nepene]

There's probably some sort of correlation which goes a certain way in certain cultures, but we're a long way from saying that's universal among different cultures or saying exactly what that relationship is. We're not really knowledgable about it to a sufficient degree to say that for a particular rich or poor person they'll value it a particular amount.

[crayzz]

No, but then we're dealing with an effectively stochastic system: we don't need to be "knowledgable about it to a sufficient degree to say that for a particular rich or poor person they'll value it a particular amount." That's just arbitrarily raising the goal post.

[Nepene]

The original implied message of this was that a poor person would shiv you if you took 10 dollars from him but a rich person wouldn't therefore we should take money from the rich because they value it less.

You do need some reasonably objective measurement of value- what if a rich person would also shiv you if you took 10 dollars from him?

[RyukaTana]

The original implied message of this was that a poor person would shiv you if you took 10 dollars from him but a rich person wouldn't therefore we should take money from the rich because they value it less.

Nope... It really wasn't.

It very much suggested that $10 is far more meaningful to someone that only has $100 to their name, over someone who has even $1,000, much less $10k or $100k, or more. It doesn't matter how one 'feels' about their money, there is a clear difference between how much it effects someone with very little money to lose $10, and how much it means for someone who is even just middle class.

[Nepene]

The original implied message of this was that a poor person would shiv you if you took 10 dollars from him but a rich person wouldn't therefore we should take money from the rich because they value it less.

Nope... It really wasn't.

It very much suggested that $10 is far more meaningful to someone that only has $100 to their name, over someone who has even $1,000, much less $10k or $100k, or more. It doesn't matter how one 'feels' about their money, there is a clear difference between how much it effects someone with very little money to lose $10, and how much it means for someone who is even just middle class.

I agree that there is a difference in the practical effect of the $10 on a poor person and a rich person, and that more meaning can be granted to the poor person by the same money.

I agree that how people feel about money isn't really important in how you should distribute it.

I believe (and you didn't mention this) that a poor person and a rich person could personally value, feel the same about that $10 and both could shiv you if you tried to steal it.

Do you actually disagree with me on anything or is this just a signaling error?

[RyukaTana]

I was disagreeing with your assertion that what you said was the point of the original post.

[Nepene]

I was disagreeing with your assertion that what you said was the point of the original post.

Imagine you have one hundred dollars - that's it, just $100, and you don't know when or where or if or how you're going to get more. In that case, if I steal $10 from you, that's a shivvable offense. After all, if you stretch it right, $10 can be enough to feed you for a whole day, which is a day you can spend at the library using the computers to search for work. Conversely, if you have a hundred million dollars - again, without any means of making more - and I take ten million from you, you barely feel it.

"how much money do you have" and Y-axis is "what is the value of a dollar to you"?

The original post made the argument that, because of the lower value of the ten dollars to a millionaire, they would be less likely to shiv you as they felt less. It was very clear that feelings were important, that personal valuations were important.

Since I don't actually disagree that feelings of rich people with regards to you taking their ten dollars are not that important I don't think we actually disagree on much. I don't really care enough to have an extensive semantics debate on what Tail said. It seems fairly clear to me what he said.