> Which is precisely the point of the old "money does not buy happiness" adage, isn't it ?
Not the way I read it, really. If money doesn't buy happiness, then the graph should be completely flat right? Or at the very least a uniformly distributed scatter plot? But it doesn't really seem to look that way. While I suspect that there's some truth to the adage, it's definitely not absolute.
> Science that says "This 1000ths gallon of water is gonna be as good as worthless" seems to favor the point rather than oppose it.
That's not the point. The point is that as you have more of a thing, it takes more to move the needle. EVERYTHING has decreasing marginal utility, and money does too. But I don't think the marginal utility of money ever becomes zero, or goes negative. Do you think that? If so, please start sending me your money so that you can be happier!
Here's a great example for you. Raises are nearly always percentages right? Why not just give everyone a $100 a year raise? I mean, that $100 is supposed to be the same to everyone, isn't it? 10% more money increases your happiness approximately the same, no matter what number that 10% increase is applied to.
> As for your graphs, what I was saying is precisely that, unless you've been trained to read graphs (and most people are not), you're going to be "fooled" more easily by the second one, won't you ?
I think that if you want to understand the way a system works across many orders of magnitude the only way to do so without fooling yourself is to look at a log/log plot. If you don't, only the most extreme change on the plot shows up and all the rest gets compressed into a "straight" line by the vagaries of turning an infinitely variable thing into a finite set of pixels.
Not the way I read it, really. If money doesn't buy happiness, then the graph should be completely flat right? Or at the very least a uniformly distributed scatter plot? But it doesn't really seem to look that way. While I suspect that there's some truth to the adage, it's definitely not absolute.
> Science that says "This 1000ths gallon of water is gonna be as good as worthless" seems to favor the point rather than oppose it.
That's not the point. The point is that as you have more of a thing, it takes more to move the needle. EVERYTHING has decreasing marginal utility, and money does too. But I don't think the marginal utility of money ever becomes zero, or goes negative. Do you think that? If so, please start sending me your money so that you can be happier!
Here's a great example for you. Raises are nearly always percentages right? Why not just give everyone a $100 a year raise? I mean, that $100 is supposed to be the same to everyone, isn't it? 10% more money increases your happiness approximately the same, no matter what number that 10% increase is applied to.
> As for your graphs, what I was saying is precisely that, unless you've been trained to read graphs (and most people are not), you're going to be "fooled" more easily by the second one, won't you ?
I think that if you want to understand the way a system works across many orders of magnitude the only way to do so without fooling yourself is to look at a log/log plot. If you don't, only the most extreme change on the plot shows up and all the rest gets compressed into a "straight" line by the vagaries of turning an infinitely variable thing into a finite set of pixels.