Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

How much would you like to earn?
webmaster Posted: Wed May 14 12:33:56 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Assuming prices of goods and services are the same, would you rather:

a. earn $50,000 a year while others earn $100,000, or;

b. earn $100,000 a year while others earn $200,000?

Why?


 
Kira Posted: Wed May 14 16:00:04 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  $100,000 a year, because it's still the greater income regardless of how much others are making.


 
FN Posted: Wed May 14 16:18:13 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Basic economics says that if that'd be the case it wouldn't matter since the system would adjust the prices to the inflation rates anyway so the options are both identical in practice, and no matter what if all the others earn double what you earn you'll be screwed.

Also, if they all earn the same they won't be earning it for long and the whole thing will just collapse on itself.

So I'd say option b so because of the initial shock it destabilises quicker and capitalism can regain control.

Yay capitalism!


 
addi Posted: Wed May 14 17:33:58 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'd settle for any "a" or "b" right now...and be happy about it.




 
Ahriman Posted: Wed May 14 19:45:18 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  $50,000 because it probably means I'd be living in a rural area. $100,000 means I'm probably in suburbia rotting in a plastic wrapped subdivision.


 
Posted: Thu May 15 04:22:33 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  actually, the question (as posed in the LA Times earlier this year) was more along the lines of:

a) would you rather make 50k while others make 25k?
or
b) would you rather make 100k while others make 200k?

with goods and services staying the same price.

and (shockingly, I should say), most people chose A.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 15 11:04:54 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  What kind of stupid question is that (la times one).


 
addi Posted: Thu May 15 11:26:06 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Your avatar has caused quite a stir here at the resturant it showed up at.
I told you down south some folks are much more comfortable openingly expressing their racism


 
Kira Posted: Thu May 15 11:34:19 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I think it's supposed to demonstrate a concept similar to instant-gratification-vs.-delayed-gratification (e.g. would you like 25k now or 100k two years from now, many people would take the 25) but I forget the term for it. The idea is that people instinctively just want MORE than what other people have got, and hate the idea of other people having more than they, so they choose the first option even though it's much less money.

Basically a way of showing how little reason people have.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 15 11:44:26 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You can only be rich or poor when you compare yourself to "others"

So in a scenario like those described here, if you make more than the others, you're rich, if you don't, you're poor, no matter what the time interval is.



Also, what's wrong with my avatar? ;)


 
Kira Posted: Thu May 15 12:00:56 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I hadn't thought of that actually. The question doesn't define whether "others" means everyone else, or a reasonable majority, or what. In either case option A looks more beneficial to the individual...


 
FN Posted: Thu May 15 12:38:48 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you're a communist pig!


 
Posted: Thu May 15 12:40:17 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>What kind of stupid question is that (la times one).

A pretty good one, I thought. Explores psychology more than economy, but even so.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-schermer13jan13,0,1195880.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail


 
FN Posted: Thu May 15 12:53:05 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's a stupid question since the question itself is dubious in nature, and purely on semantics as far as I can tell the question is you make amount A, others (as in all others) make amount B.

Even without the word "all", the suggestions of "all" is there and dubious enough to be taken as such since it creates 2 groups with only 2 income levels available, in both option A and B.

Their follow up on it doesn't make any sense because I'm certain a lot of people will have based their answer off a wrong interpretation of the question.

They should have said "some" others, then the answers would have been very different.


 
FN Posted: Thu May 15 12:56:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>They should have said "some" others, then the answers would have been very different.

And some smug reporter wouldn't have been able to write a follow up about how he fooled them all, while the irony of the matter is that he didn't realise the faulty nature of his own question.


 
mat_j Posted: Fri May 16 03:36:55 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  As much as Christophes yakking in this thread is making my eyes bleed he does have a really good point.

If everyone is earning the 100,000.00 then the price of everything would skyrocket because you'd need to pay workers more to produce goods and services.

If all my friends were earning 200K and the world still is as it is i would say

"Give me that Job sir... Dog food taster? aww man!"


 
mat_j Posted: Fri May 16 03:54:01 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  P.S.

I don't relaly mean that Christophe, i love you really.


 
FN Posted: Fri May 16 10:47:00 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>P.S.
>
>I don't relaly mean that Christophe, i love you really.

I know you love me longtime ;)

And yeah, formulating good points is just what I do. lol


 
webmaster Posted: Fri May 16 12:53:21 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>actually, the question (as posed in the LA Times earlier this year) was more along the lines of:
>
>a) would you rather make 50k while others make 25k?

I just realised I had typed my question wrongly. Sorry!


 
choke Posted: Fri May 16 20:18:44 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Golly there's so much to comment on!

I think you guys pretty much have this question sorted. So...

If one country offered higher wages AND lower living expenses, would you pursue quality of life (moneywise) over the social comfort of your own country?



 
Posted: Sat May 17 18:58:20 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  choke said:
>Golly there's so much to comment on!
>
>I think you guys pretty much have this question sorted. So...
>
>If one country offered higher wages AND lower living expenses, would you pursue quality of life (moneywise) over the social comfort of your own country?
>

See: Moving from Canada to Arizona, July 2007.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 17 20:13:57 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>choke said:
>>Golly there's so much to comment on!
>>
>>I think you guys pretty much have this question sorted. So...
>>
>>If one country offered higher wages AND lower living expenses, would you pursue quality of life (moneywise) over the social comfort of your own country?
>>
>
>See: Moving from Canada to Arizona, July 2007.
>
Tell us about the culture shock, other than you can't get poutine.


 
libra Posted: Sat May 17 21:41:28 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I totally experienced culture shock for the first few weeks after coming back from canada to the states...it was the weirdest thing to not feel like a part of my own country.



 
Posted: Sun May 18 01:12:34 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>CriminalSaint said:
>>choke said:
>>>Golly there's so much to comment on!
>>>
>>>I think you guys pretty much have this question sorted. So...
>>>
>>>If one country offered higher wages AND lower living expenses, would you pursue quality of life (moneywise) over the social comfort of your own country?
>>>
>>
>>See: Moving from Canada to Arizona, July 2007.
>>
>Tell us about the culture shock, other than you can't get poutine.

Mostly small things (I think that some chain stores are hip trendy local places until I find out that there are 300 locations across the U.S., a lot of people ask me why I don't have a Canadian accent, etc)

The big things that come up every now and then are usually bad things, I'm sorry to say. I worry about getting sick and not being able to do anything about it except for fly home (I have medical insurance, but if something big happened, it would still put me in the poor house). I find that I trust people less and am trusted less. And some days more than others I have a lot of trouble relating to the way Americans experience other people - it seems like they're at once friendly and helping, at other times blatantly ignorant and malicious. Don't get me wrong here: 95% of the people I've met have been very kind hearted, etc. but there seems to be some kind of Asshole subculture (maybe it's just especially prevalent in Phoenix?) beneath my feet.


 
addi Posted: Sun May 18 07:13:31 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
Don't get me wrong here: 95% of the people I've met have been very kind hearted, etc. but there seems to be some kind of Asshole subculture (maybe it's just especially prevalent in Phoenix?) beneath my feet.

American has the second highest percentage of citizen assholes in the world, trailing only France...and they're not limited to the Phoenix area.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun May 18 07:45:09 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>CriminalSaint said:
>>>choke said:
>>>>Golly there's so much to comment on!
>>>>
>>>>I think you guys pretty much have this question sorted. So...
>>>>
>>>>If one country offered higher wages AND lower living expenses, would you pursue quality of life (moneywise) over the social comfort of your own country?
>>>>
>>>
>>>See: Moving from Canada to Arizona, July 2007.
>>>
>>Tell us about the culture shock, other than you can't get poutine.
>
>Mostly small things (I think that some chain stores are hip trendy local places until I find out that there are 300 locations across the U.S., a lot of people ask me why I don't have a Canadian accent, etc)
>
I can't really comment on your accent, but in your avatar you certainly don't look Canadian.
:-)

>The big things that come up every now and then are usually bad things, I'm sorry to say. I worry about getting sick and not being able to do anything about it except for fly home (I have medical insurance, but if something big happened, it would still put me in the poor house). I find that I trust people less and am trusted less. And some days more than others I have a lot of trouble relating to the way Americans experience other people - it seems like they're at once friendly and helping, at other times blatantly ignorant and malicious. Don't get me wrong here: 95% of the people I've met have been very kind hearted, etc. but there seems to be some kind of Asshole subculture (maybe it's just especially prevalent in Phoenix?) beneath my feet.
>
It's the heat, turns everybody into assholes.
:-)


 
Posted: Sun May 18 20:42:45 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>It's the heat, turns everybody into assholes.
>:-)

103 today, 107 tomorrow. Fucking desert.


 
mat_j Posted: Tue May 20 07:07:48 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't know, to my trained British eye i'd say he has the air of a colonist about him.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue May 20 07:28:58 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  mat_j said:
>I don't know, to my trained British eye i'd say he has the air of a colonist about him.
>
Would a colonist be one who fancies the colons of others ?
:-)



 
mat_j Posted: Wed May 21 08:37:38 2008 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Would a colonist be one who fancies the colons of others ?
>:-)
>

Almost certainly!
colonial is what you need when you get a gerbil stuck up there.


Do you have people called Nigel in America?



 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]