"because status is a zero-sum game–one person must lose status in order for another to gain it–these are wasted activity from the point of view of the group; there is no net gain in happiness from all that expenditure."
I agree with your response, more or less, but let me offer a different way of putting it: the status game is not a "collective action" problem as defined, since there is no "point of view of the group" - only individuals have a point of view, and only individuals willing to play the game to win can lose it. Those who are unaffected by material displays of pure status cannot lose, furthermore, the "rat race" produces positive externalities in the form of enhanced economic output by its participants that is enjoyed by all.
So, there is no collective action problem in the status game played in a market economy, there is only a minor individual problem, a certain deficiency, a form of childishness, immaturity, that afflicts status-seekers but is actually good for the rest of us.
In other words, there is no problem at all.
Will Wilkinson
· 3 years ago
Rafal, You're right. I agree.
In the literature the collective action problem is actually "disarmament" in the status race. The race itself isn't the problem. If we assume that everyone would be better off if they reduced the intensity of status competition, but that none will slow down unless others do, then we have a collective action problem. Layard, amog others, promotes higher taxes on labor to lower the relative price of leisure, which he think will slow down the race. I don't actually see how this is supposed to work, myself.
odograph
· 3 years ago
I think it's too bad happiness research gets mapped onto ongoing political arguments as fast as it is generated. It's pretty easy to see people who's main agenda is to attack (or support) "the market" or "the state" picking and choosing.
My (perhaps moderate) position is that most semi-affluent people are in an unconscious status competition, and that they could benefit from a little education. There's no reason that has to come from "the state." It could come from the blogs, if they weren't too busy with politics.
R.J. Lehmann
· 3 years ago
Allow me to unsheath the ubergeek who lives inside me to point out that, while Wolverine's bones are made of adamantium, Captain America's shield is made of a one-of-a-kind adamantium-vibranium compound, which is even stronger and harder than true adamantium. So, the answer, theoretically, is yes.
Will Wilkinson
· 3 years ago
R.J., Your geekery is blinding!
Lane
· 3 years ago
Captain America’s shield is made of a one-of-a-kind adamantium-vibranium compound. . . .
This is the best thing I've learned from this blog in years.
Lane
· 3 years ago
Also, I'd like to take this chance to leave the inappropriately off-topic comment that I love the new look of your blog. And I love even more that you ditched MT for Wordpress (being something of an ubergeek myself).
Then why do people buy the expensive mechanical watches? Edward Faber of the Aaron Faber Gallery in Manhattan recently described buyers of these watches as men from 30 to 50 who want "this 'power tool,' this instrument on their wrist that distinguishes them from the pack." The problem is that if a watch is to distinguish its owner, it must sell for more than the watches worn by members of the pack. So when the pack spends more, the price of distinguishing oneself also rises. And in the end, no one gains any more distinction than if all had spent less.
This is an argument that the "rich" whoever they might be, should be taxed more heavily.
===============
Here is what I think: The obsession of intellectuals and other members of the chattering classes with status envy, conspicuous consumption and income distribution is a reflection of their own insecurities and the tensions of their little world. Most of us out here in flyover country, just don't get it.
The New York real-estate boom is claiming a different kind of casualty, according to an article in Sunday's New York Times. Keying off a new report issued by the Center for an Urban Future, Jennifer Steinhauer noted that, thanks to high housing prices, many of the creative types who work in Manhattan-centered fields like advertising, publishing, and the arts are being priced out of the city. This, presumably, could damage New York in the long run, since it's an article of faith among nouveau-urban thinkers that the creative classes are a huge economic advantage, as the author Richard Florida has persuasively argued.
It could also damage journalism. The journalists who write these stories about people who can't afford to live in New York can't afford to live in New York, either. And that's a trend that may prove just as corrosive to establishment media as any disruptive technology.
Tamfang
· 3 years ago
Captain America's shield is not necessarily harder than plain adamantium, but it is more durable because vibranium absorbs shocks.
Keller Williams Realty
· 11 months ago
From a philosophical/idealist perspective, "government" and "happiness" entering the same universe in any conversation is disheartening. Practically speaking, the powers that be (in the U.S. anyway) have made government such an intricate (and some would say invasive) part of our lives that we no longer can do without it/them. Perhaps any discussion of happiness or happiness research should revolve around removing government from the everyday lives of all citizens.
All Comments
"because status is a zero-sum game–one person must lose status in order for another to gain it–these are wasted activity from the point of view of the group; there is no net gain in happiness from all that expenditure."
I agree with your response, more or less, but let me offer a different way of putting it: the status game is not a "collective action" problem as defined, since there is no "point of view of the group" - only individuals have a point of view, and only individuals willing to play the game to win can lose it. Those who are unaffected by material displays of pure status cannot lose, furthermore, the "rat race" produces positive externalities in the form of enhanced economic output by its participants that is enjoyed by all.
So, there is no collective action problem in the status game played in a market economy, there is only a minor individual problem, a certain deficiency, a form of childishness, immaturity, that afflicts status-seekers but is actually good for the rest of us.
In other words, there is no problem at all.
In the literature the collective action problem is actually "disarmament" in the status race. The race itself isn't the problem. If we assume that everyone would be better off if they reduced the intensity of status competition, but that none will slow down unless others do, then we have a collective action problem. Layard, amog others, promotes higher taxes on labor to lower the relative price of leisure, which he think will slow down the race. I don't actually see how this is supposed to work, myself.
My (perhaps moderate) position is that most semi-affluent people are in an unconscious status competition, and that they could benefit from a little education. There's no reason that has to come from "the state." It could come from the blogs, if they weren't too busy with politics.
This is the best thing I've learned from this blog in years.
Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Waste More, Want More, By Robert H. Frank, Published: December 22, 2005:
This is an argument that the "rich" whoever they might be, should be taxed more heavily.
===============
Here is what I think: The obsession of intellectuals and other members of the chattering classes with status envy, conspicuous consumption and income distribution is a reflection of their own insecurities and the tensions of their little world. Most of us out here in flyover country, just don't get it.
Are Journalists Underpaid?
Pity the sad, broke New York Times reporter. By Daniel Gross, Posted Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2005, at 6:23 AM ET