I do not think Bryan would agree with that. Studying in the United States (US) means a higher chance of being employed relative to studying in a random country, but the US has higher salaries, which plays against leaving.
Donāt you think a similar objection would apply to Caplanās āproofā that people donāt move to poorer neighborhoods because something something externalities?
(Moreover, I just realized thata ārealists say that people only care about relative wealthā is a remarkable strawman, and itās refutation does not entail that people barely care about relative incomeāand this is the first time I see an Economics professor mixing claims about wealth and income in the same argument)
Yes, I think a similar objection applies. However, I would still expect more people to move to neighbourhoods with a lower mean income if people cared a lot about their income relative to their neighbours. I believe peopleās behaviour is better explained by people caring much more about their income than their income relative to their neighbours.
Or: people care about relative income because: a) it entails more wealth (as capital gains accumulate faster than returns on work) which entails more power, like the possibility of funding intellectuals to say that inequality doesnāt matter; and b) it signals status, or it is used to buy status-goods, such as buying a nice house in a rich neighborhood without fearing your neighbors wanting to sack it (since they might care about relative income, even if you donāt)
Btw I just realized I can totally bite this bullet: I have lived in 4 cities in the last decade, and I prefer to live in the cheap one not only because of the low cost of living (like many online workers have been doing), but also because I never feel poor in relation to others...Which results in mixed feelings, though, as I donāt want to feel much wealthier than the surroundingsāit makes me wonder of I should be paying more for services and taxes etc.
Hi Ramiro,
I do not think Bryan would agree with that. Studying in the United States (US) means a higher chance of being employed relative to studying in a random country, but the US has higher salaries, which plays against leaving.
Donāt you think a similar objection would apply to Caplanās āproofā that people donāt move to poorer neighborhoods because something something externalities?
(Moreover, I just realized thata ārealists say that people only care about relative wealthā is a remarkable strawman, and itās refutation does not entail that people barely care about relative incomeāand this is the first time I see an Economics professor mixing claims about wealth and income in the same argument)
Yes, I think a similar objection applies. However, I would still expect more people to move to neighbourhoods with a lower mean income if people cared a lot about their income relative to their neighbours. I believe peopleās behaviour is better explained by people caring much more about their income than their income relative to their neighbours.
Or: people care about relative income because: a) it entails more wealth (as capital gains accumulate faster than returns on work) which entails more power, like the possibility of funding intellectuals to say that inequality doesnāt matter; and b) it signals status, or it is used to buy status-goods, such as buying a nice house in a rich neighborhood without fearing your neighbors wanting to sack it (since they might care about relative income, even if you donāt)
Btw I just realized I can totally bite this bullet: I have lived in 4 cities in the last decade, and I prefer to live in the cheap one not only because of the low cost of living (like many online workers have been doing), but also because I never feel poor in relation to others...Which results in mixed feelings, though, as I donāt want to feel much wealthier than the surroundingsāit makes me wonder of I should be paying more for services and taxes etc.