yes, in going from scenario 1 to scenario 2 you get twice as much "stuff".

but you also go from being the rich guy to being the guy who's got a lot less than everyone else.

much depends on how that relative position is viewed. if everyone else treats you as a hero because of your choice, then sure, that works well. but if they treat you poorly because, well, that's the way we view people with less wealth, then that doesn't work so well.

OECD countries (or even the globe) then picking option 1 is a no-brainer. Money is all relative, and it is always better to make double the average than half the overall population's average. You would be able to live twice as well (from a material perspective). You also have to take into account the time period and what the actual cost of living is.

NOW, that said, if by "those around you" it just means a neighbourhood or your co-workers and friends and family only (so a small segment) AND it is talking about the here and now (ie present, 2018), then of course a person should pick option 2, as it is better to have 100K a year in the present than 50K a year. In that option 2 case, 100K is far above the OVERALL average in the real world of today, it just is less than the subset you are looking at.

If everybody is making 200,000 but you are making half, then you are poorer to everybody. So in this context is important to know what is meant by "those around you."

In the area of London (the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea) where I lived with my mum before I moved to the Nordic part of the EU for my post grad degrees, the average salary is (in usd) around 170,000 per year, BUT the median salary is only 45,000 usd per year. Areas of the Borough that are ultra posh pull up the overall average very high versus the median, which is the exact point where 50% make more, and 50% make less than you.

Using the average income in the USA (or anywhere) is a horrid measure, as the ultra rich skew it up very high. The median income per person (NOT household) in the USA is around HALF of the average per person. Even worse is the use of per capita GDP, as so much of the GDP (and especially in the USA) is based off the financialisation (the so-called FIRE economy, ie. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sectors) of speculative, non-productive capital. These trillions of dollars of income and gains filter down to an extremely small sector of the overall populace. The US also includes (not all nations do this) in their GDP certain societal costs (prisons, etc) that have a negative overall aspect.

And I wonder if the fact that everyone tested was associated with Harvard had anything to do with the competiveness involved. Although it is arguably an evolutionary survival trait to prefer taking care of your own over taking care of the group as a whole....something we can only change thru social interaction.

And I am reminded of the kids' game where you ask "Would you rather....sit on a tack or burn your hand?" My only answer has always been "This is a dumb game."

Back in 1960, my folks could buy a house and live comfortably on an income of less than $10,000 a year. When I went to college, I could work a good summer job and pay for 9 months of tuition, food and housing. My kids couldn't work full time living at home and pay for tuition from the same school. What would everyone making twice what I make do to the price of things?

So I chose neither.

your reaction was mine originally, why would i want twice as many dollars if the dollars are worth one-fourth as much.
but that reduces the whole question to "would you rather be the richest person around or the poorest person around."

the original paper clarified that it really was meant to mean that everyone had a lot more stuff, that you're "objectively" better off with the greater wealth -- but other people are far better off than even your improved situation.


in a way, a similar test would be, would you rather live now where you are, in your presumably average or so situation with the world as it is; or would you rather be the richest lord but back in the 6th century. no phones, no cars, no central air/heat, no health care, etc. but people treat you really, really well because you own so many goats.

me, i like it where i am, but i can see plenty of people preferring to be admired and respected and the object of everyone's envy.

I still hate hypotheticals like this, with only two choices; I am a firm believer in alternatives. If the experiment is re-run, I'd want to see a question like this added first--it might change subsequent answers.

You are allowed to open one of two treasure boxes and must share the treasure with X other people. Which would you rather open:
A. You get $500 and everyone else gets $250, or
B. You get $1000 and everyone else gets $2000.

I'd go for B every time.

I think the same person could easily give different answers depending on details of the setup, such as whether or not people know what choice you make, or whether or not the smaller wealth is still plenty enough for a decent life.

As long as my salary is appropriate to my skill and effort, I have no objection to what others make.