• WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    4 days ago

    You can still reason about expected value in this situation, just $ is not really what you want to optimize for.

    When you view it as “100% chance of being able to afford anything” vs “50% chance of being able to afford anything” it becomes more clear.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      Meanwhile, you ask a near trillionaire to pay even 10% taxes and they act like you’re actively breaking their legs and throwing them onto the street to starve.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah, it’s obviously logarithmic or something. There is diminishing value in money. I think the way you put it makes it very intuitive though.

      • アイス@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes, in financial theory it’s called a “utility function”. Log functions are frequently used to represent risk averse patterns.

    • binarytobis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      You see the expected value fallacy thing pop up in real life when the lottery hits big digits. “Did you hear? The jackpot is over $1 billion! Let’s go buy tickets.”

      Let’s be real, after $100 million, or honestly even $10 million, increasing the jackpot doesn’t change how much effect that money has on your life very much. At that point, likelihood is a lot more important.

      But every time the jackpot peaks, it’s like all of these intelligent, thoughtful people around me lose their ability for rational thought. Why would you buy a lottery ticket now, but not when the jackpot was $500 million a month ago?