The Zero-Sum Bias: When people think that everything is a competition

Post by leetcrew » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

Droobfest wrote: post #31

umvi wrote: post #6

This will be controversial, but this is true everytime there is a pitchfork-inducing "the rich got richer in 20XX" thread. But it's not that the rich stole from the poor in order to become richer (though undoubtedly people will argue this). If I stick a million dollars in an index fund and passively get richer, am I stealing from the poor? Wealth is not zero sum, yet we seem to treat it like it is (in order for poor…

Say the top 1% increase their proportion of wealth from 20% to 40% of the money supply. Since there's only a finite amount of stuff to buy (productivity), this means the rich can also buy a proportionally bigger amount of stuff. Now, yes, this money gets in the hands of whoever is selling but in our current world this is increasingly also the rich. They're slowly buying up all real estate, companies, securities etc.…

Post by qwsxyh » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

davesmith1983 wrote: post #14

gamegoblin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I necessarily agree with them, but some people would say that your index fund is stealing from the poor in a sense, because corporate profits (distributed to you, the shareholder, as dividends) are derived from exploiting the working class, when they could be raising wages instead. This is obviously not the entire story, because the economy certainly has grown historically and continues to grow, and that gro…

Well labour prices (for whatever the industry is) is driven by market forces. The Salary / Rate has to match the market expectations. If the market rate is artificially inflated (minimum hourly wage) then companies will find a way to automate those jobs away. I am sure people will say that this would have happened anyway with certain unskilled labour jobs but you could argue that this only further incentivises them.…

Post by tasty_freeze » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:50 PM UTC

mLuby wrote: post #42

gamegoblin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I necessarily agree with them, but some people would say that your index fund is stealing from the poor in a sense, because corporate profits (distributed to you, the shareholder, as dividends) are derived from exploiting the working class, when they could be raising wages instead. This is obviously not the entire story, because the economy certainly has grown historically and continues to grow, and that gro…

Technically yes, but the key difference is that those index funds are equally available to rich and poor, and the returns are the same for everyone (mostly). Contrast that with the plethora of wealth-increasing opportunities that are not available without a large initial investment or the connections or power that comes with existing wealth.

Post by rightbyte » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:52 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #37

xondono wrote: post #35

The textbook example of zero-sum thinking is how most people (specially those involved in politics) talk about imports and exports.

All trade is a victim of this. In reality, trade always creates value, and you can argue that all wealth in the world is created from trade, most of it interpersonal. But people still feel instinctually that each transaction has a winner and a loser.

Post by jlawson » Sat, Jul 06, 2019, 7:54 PM UTC

petra wrote: post #21

Modern Life is so complex. And in many situations , telling whether they're zero sum, is uncertain, and hard. Look at the debates here for example. So people default to what they already generally know. They know that society is very competitive. The job market is very competitive. The mating market is very competitive. Zero sum games are everywhere. So it's no wonder they have this cognitive bias.