From: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Date: November 12, 2010 10:04:21 AM PST
Cc: Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com
Subject: Calculating Appropriate Wealth Disparity
[From Rick Marken (2010.11.12.1000)]
Let’s start by looking at the individual as an economy unto himself.
This was pretty much the case for the first humans. Nearly allcontrolling was done individually; each person was the producer and
consumer of his own “wealth”. So each individual had the skill to
produce the food, water, shelter, defense, clothing, etc. that he (orshe) consumed (controlled for). There was probably some specialization
from the very beginning (child care vs hunting) but to a first
approximation the first people – the first controllers – had to beable to be able to produce nearly everything they needed for
themselves, individually.In this world, where each individual is an economy unto themselves,
there was surely a range of skill levels; there were individualdifferences in how well people could produce what they needed (and
wanted) to consume. In order to get an idea of what the skill range
might have been I looked at the skill range in some modern examples ofskillful controlling: running marathons, doing crossword puzzles and
playing tennis. I measured the skill range for these activities in
terms of the ratio of best to worst performance scores for the NYmarathon, a crossword puzzle contest (a cognitive skill) and the ATP
tennis tour. I measured marathon and crossword skill in terms of
time; tennis skill in terms of won/loss percentage.For the NY marathon the ratio of the slowest (9hr 15 min) to fastest
(2 hs 8 min) time was 4.3; the best marathon runner was 4.3 times
better (at controlling for running the marathon) than the worstrunner. For a crossword tournament, the ratio of the the best score
(6710) to the worst (1540) was 4.35 (crossword points are given based
on time; the faster the player controls for completion the few pointsare deducted form the total). For tennis the ratio of the best
won/loss record (Nadel, 88%) to the worstt (Kuznetsoz, 18%) is 4.88.So there is a surprisingly consistent ratio of best to worst among
expert controllers of marathons, crossword puzzles and tennis play;
about 4.5. The best controller is about 4.5 times better than the
worst.Since the first people were all presumably skilled at controlling for
what they needed and wanted (or they – or more appropriately their
progeny-- are no longer around), I estimate that the ratio of the best
to the worst controller (individual economic unit) was ~4.5. Sinceskill at controlling should determine how much wealth (consumables)
one has my estimate is that the wealth range for the first people was
about 4.5 to 1. The best controllers were able to get 4.5 times morewealth (food, clothes, shelter, etc) than the worst. But even the
worst controllers had enough wealth to survive (just as the worst
marathoners, crossword puzzlers and tennis players are able to producegood enough results to have completed the marathon, solved the
crossword or stay on the tennis tour).If you’re still with me, let’s now go to modern economic man. Unlike
our “primitive” predecessors, no one individual today can control for
virtually everything they want and need on their own. Everything we
control for is a product of specialized skills and efforts of manyindividuals combined. But lets ignore the complex process by which
all the goods and services that we use everyday came into existence.
Let’s assume that modern economic man is equivalent to the first manand has the skill, time, and ability to be an economy unto himself. In
other words, let’s imagine that, like the first man, each individual
modern person can produce everything he wants to consume. Moderneconomic man produces his car, his house, his electricity, he
extracts, smelts and casts the raw materials that these things are
made of. He can produce everything that he needs to consume; he is anamazingly skilled producer, producing all the complex goods and
services that he wants to consume.I assume that the range of control skills in a population of modern
economic individuals is the same as the range of control skills in any
skilled control task, like marathon running, crossword solving or
tennis playing. The best modern economic controller, then, should beabout 4.5 times better than the worst one (this excludes people who
can’t control yet, like children, who can no longer control, like the
elderly, and who are unable to control, like those with healthproblems).
In a modern economy, income is considered a measure of one’s
competence or skill. If this is the case, then the highest income
should be about 4.5 times the lowest income. In the US, the ratio ofthe highest incomes to the average income is now 260. Assuming the
lowest income is about $20,000 (the lowest income for a person who can
be considered “in the race” of economic control) the ratio of highestto lowest incomes is 580. So if income is a reflection of economic
skill level, and if the ratio of the highest to lowest economic skill
is about what it is for other skills (4.5) then the ratio of highestto lowest incomes in the US (580) is way out of wack.
Of course, the wealth disparity in every country, even the good ones
like Norway and Sweden, is far greater than 4.5, my estimate of theratio of best to worst control skill in a population of skilled
controllers. So what’s going on?One thing that seems to be going on is that wealth measured in terms
of money is probably not a linear measure of control skill measured in
terms of actual performance. This may be a function of the way we
perceive money itself. The perceived value of money has been proposedto be a log function of the numerical value of money, so the
difference in perceived value of $100 and $200 is a lot bigger than
that between $1,000,100 and $1,000,200. One bit of evidence for thisis that there is a negative exponential relationship between
performance level and winnings. This results in the ratio of winnings
for the best and worst performers being much larger than the ratio oftheir performance measures. For example, in tennis, where the
performance ratio of best to worst is 4.88, the winnings ratio for the
same pair is 1200. In the PGA, where the performance ratio for thosewho make the cut is 3.7, the winnings ratio is 717.
So one possible reason for the wealth disparity in modern economies
may be an artifact of the way we perceive money. I’m sure there areother factors involved. But whatever the cause of wealth disparity (in
terms of money), I think my analysis suggests that differences in
competence have very little to do with it.Best
Rick
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
···
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message: