How much would you like to be paid?

[Heyesey 11]

So why are we told to think about it? I live in the real world, but perhaps I should have pretended that statement could be true and NOT thought about it.

 

If you're going to argue that the scenario is impossible in practice (which it is!) then neither group of voters is wrong, because the answer is irrelevant.

[Cyclone 10]

Assuming that caveat.

If you choose 50k in a 100k world you'll be very disappointed. You won't be able to live the average life style and as your only point of reference will be your peers you'll correctly work out that you have less than everyone else (even if in real terms you'd have more than the 40k person in the 20k world).

If you choose 40k, you'll find that compared to most you have a large disposable income, sure the average standard of living will be much lower than the 100k world, but you won't know that as it won't exist, so your point of reference will be the average of 20k, which you'll have much more than.

So choosing in order to maximise your own happiness, I'd go with 40k in a 20k world.

[Tess 10]

I'de rather have the 40k, purely so I know I can afford to live comfertably. If I was on half the average income, I'de be a bit worried about my future etc, even with the circumstances you stated!

[Heyesey 11]

Assuming that caveat.

If you choose 50k in a 100k world you'll be very disappointed. You won't be able to live the average life style and as your only point of reference will be your peers you'll correctly work out that you have less than everyone else (even if in real terms you'd have more than the 40k person in the 20k world).

If you choose 40k, you'll find that compared to most you have a large disposable income, sure the average standard of living will be much lower than the 100k world, but you won't know that as it won't exist, so your point of reference will be the average of 20k, which you'll have much more than.

So choosing in order to maximise your own happiness, I'd go with 40k in a 20k world.

 

That does rather rely on your happiness being defined by whether you're better off than other people. If that's true of anyone, then I despair for them.

[Heyesey 11]

I'de rather have the 40k, purely so I know I can afford to live comfertably.

 

 

You can live more comfortably on 50k then 40k. Why pick the lower wage, if that is your criterion for making a choice?

[shims 10]

If the purchasing power is exactly the same (as stated), either would do me.

 

If £20K was going to put some on the poverty line (seems unlikely!) compared to my £40K, I'd take the £50K against the £100K of others. After all my cost of living is identical and I'm not remotely bothered about earning less than the rest.

[Cyclone 10]

That does rather rely on your happiness being defined by whether you're better off than other people. If that's true of anyone, then I despair for them.

 

No it doesn't, it relies on your assessment of your lifestyle and happiness derived therefore being made as a comparison to the average lifestyle.

 

All other things being equal (which I think we have to assume for this scenario since nothing else is specified) having a better than average lifestyle will make you happier than have a lower than average one. All other things being equal (I'll say it again, in case you missed it the first time).

[John 11]

It is a mistake taking both scenario and attempt to make a comparision between scenario. It should be relative to itself since neither are present at the same time.

 

1) The person who choose 40K is able to purchase twice as much as those earning 20K.

 

2) The person who choose 50K is only able to purchase half as much as those who earn 100K.

[SupraSteve 10]

If you're going to argue that the scenario is impossible in practice (which it is!) then neither group of voters is wrong, because the answer is irrelevant.

True. I'll jog on!

[Heyesey 11]

All other things being equal (which I think we have to assume for this scenario since nothing else is specified) having a better than average lifestyle will make you happier than have a lower than average one.

 

 

No it won't. I don't give a flying crap what the average is.

[flamingjimmy 10]

No it doesn't, it relies on your assessment of your lifestyle and happiness derived therefore being made as a comparison to the average lifestyle.

 

My bold, exactly, which is, as Hayesey said "happiness being defined by whether you're better off than other people"

[Cyclone 10]

No it won't. I don't give a flying crap what the average is.

 

That might be because you're special.

 

But if it's true, then it makes no difference to you which you choose, since presumably you'll exist in your choice without having a comparison to the alternative. From a 3rd party view you (specifically you) should choose the higher absolute amount. Since you are different to the majority though, most people should choose the lower amount to experience higher specific levels of happiness.

 

Without getting to armchair psychologist on you, I suspect that you deliberately opt out of the comparison with peers of lifestyle as a means of measuring success since you recognise that it wouldn't indicate much in the way of success. I don't know whether you are just fooling yourself, or if you genuinely don't care, and I don't suppose it matters. Most people do compare themselves with peers in order to gauge 'success' in things, and being successful (in their own mind) makes people happier.

 

Being well off doesn't make you happy, but it makes it a damn site easier to be happy. And well off is a comparison with the average.