Are Elites Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking? Evidence from MBA Students (arxiv.org) 80
Abstract of a paper on pre-print server Arxiv: Elites disproportionately influence policymaking, yet little is known about their fairness and efficiency preferences -- key determinants of support for redistributive policies. We investigate these preferences in an incentivized lab experiment with a group of future elites -- Ivy League MBA students. We find that MBA students implement substantially more unequal earnings distributions than the average American, regardless of whether inequality stems from luck or merit. Their redistributive choices are also highly responsive to efficiency costs, with an effect that is an order of magnitude larger than that found in representative U.S. samples. Analyzing fairness ideals, we find that MBA students are less likely to be strict meritocrats than the broader population. These findings provide novel insights into how elites' redistributive preferences may shape high levels of inequality in the U.S.
How is This News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Students at a prestigious business school (where they are trained to make successful businesses) are more likely to focus on their business's wellfare than on what's fair ... and in other news, water is wet.
Re: How is This News? (Score:3)
Fairness is subjective
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is not subjective. Fairness is subjective, death is objective...
Without the replays, leg before wicket was subjective.. but what innings it was is objective.
Just go look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Death is subjective too: just ask two people with differing opinions on whether an unborn fetus or a brain-dead person should be considered dead or alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let people be free to pursue their own desires no matter how foolish they may seem. It won't work out for everyone individually, but history has shown that this is precisely the system that produces that greatest societies. If your ideas are th
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is relative. That doesn't mean we should stop pushing society in the direction it aught to go.
You are correct. Of course, we have to decide which direction society should go. I've seen enough right wing evil. But them I've seen plenty of left wing evil as well. How does one find balance?
The big question for me at least is it is pretty common for Slashdotters to state that anyone in leadership positions are evil psychopaths, and that the lower on the ladder, the more worthy a person is.
As a CEO, I am apparently evil, and the cause of all problems. I'm certainly called an asshole often enough. Any
Re: (Score:2)
It's never really been about the people: it's always been about the system.
When you put good people in powerful positions (corporate, political, etc.) it corrupts them. But, exactly how much it corrupts them depends on the overall system they're participating in. When you have a well-regulated system (eg. a company with a strong board, or a democratic country), you get less corrupt people at the top. When you have a "give Elon Musk whatever he wants" system (or a monarchy), you get ... Elon Musk types.
Ins
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of worrying about "are CEO's good people?", we should know that anyone in power is going to act badly ... and what we should be asking is "what systems can we put in place to counter that?"
I have a remarkable amount of power, But apparently I act badly.
I know a lot of powerful people, some are not particularly good, most are actually decent. I know a loot of poor people, some are good, some are evil I'm not trying to act judgmentally, , but is judging people you have never met the mark of a good person that does good things?
Prejudice is not my metric.
You judge with out knowing. I wait until I meet a person. Explain how your prejudice is good, and my judgement based on personality and a
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah most of the paper is about identifying the concepts of fairness in this group compared to some other papers.
i gave up trying to really dig into the paper's details...
but this is the "experiment" that they're talking about...
2.1 Stages of the Experiment
In the production stage, workers have five minutes to complete a real-effort encryption task
(Appendix Figure A2 shows an example). Workers are informed that their earnings would
depend on their relative performance and a third party’s decision, but they are not given
details about the redistribution mechanism.
In the earnings stage, workers are randomly paired and compete in a winner-take-all
format. The winner of each pair is determined by one of two mechanisms: either by com-
paring the number of encryptions completed during the production stage (“performance”)
or by a coin flip (“luck”). Winners receive an initial allocation of $6, while losers receive
$0. Workers never learn the outcome of their competition—they observe only their final
payment after any redistribution has occurred.
In the redistribution stage, impartial spectators (MBA students) choose final earnings
allocations for three worker pairs. Each pair differs in how the winner was determined
and whether there is a cost to redistribute earnings. Spectators are informed about which
worker won the competition in each pair but are not shown how many encryptions workers
completed. Spectators can redistribute amounts ranging from $0 to $6 in $0.50 increments.
We present each decision as an adjustment schedule. We incentivize spectators by randomly
selecting one of their decisions for implementation.5
interesting... but fairly tortured because that head-to-head all or nothing part which is not how modern economies or employment tends to work.
AND the strength of the difference is not huge compared to the control group. basically 0.07 Gini coefficient equivalent
When worker earnings are determined by luck, MBA students
implement a Gini coefficient of 0.43, and when worker earnings are determined by task
performance, they implement a Gini coefficient of 0.62. These inequality levels exceed
those estimated using an identical methodology in representative U.S. samples, where the
corresponding Gini coefficients are approximately 0.36 and 0.56, respectively
Re: How is This News? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the point is that MBA's are trained to increase efficiency of profit. To that end, fairness is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3)
It may have been both more interesting and meaningful if they had performed the tests on students entering the MBA program, and students about to graduate from it. Then at least they would have captured the impact of training instead of assuming those preferences were completely independent.
Re: (Score:2)
Fairness is subjective
I would argue that just because impartial and objective fairness is unsolved does not mean it is unsolvable.
Re: (Score:2)
Were it to be studied, I suspect that what researchers would actually learn is that a person's definition of fair tends to move around a lot and precisely in the way that most s
Re: (Score:2)
Some people are unhappy with fairness, and only happy with relative advantage. You are under no obligation to satisfy those people.
There's quite a few papers on the subject already. Those wacky liberal arts schools and philosophy doctorates diving in deep on things that mathematics, science and engineering students would prefer to ignore.
As for Golden (and Silver) rules, Immanuel Kant already commented on that famously in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and part of Kant school's categorical imperat
It's not news (Score:2)
Students at a prestigious business school (where they are trained to make successful businesses) are more likely to focus on their business's wellfare than on what's fair ... and in other news, water is wet.
People likely to succeed in managing a business will be low in trait agreeableness [wikipedia.org]. This is well known and has been known for years.
Despite the apparent implication of "disagreeable" people being bad, it means that such people are more focused on themselves, unlikely to be swayed by the opinions of others, and more self serving. It's a trait that allows businesses to succeed, by having the owner focus on the success goals of the business instead of the success goals of other people.
Contrast with high agreea
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong-o. What they're taught is how to maximize ROI this quarter (or maybe, for long-term planning, next quarter). They DO NOT CARE about the health of the company, since they're going to jump to another job in 3 or so years.
In other news... (Score:2)
...a new study has determined that water is wet.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot separate the political and economic systems. One is the system that moves resources, the other is the system that determines how they are allocated. How can those be separated?
They can't. That's the short answer. It is also why there has never been an economy (to our knowledge) where market rules were set entirely within the market. It is the market participants who set the rules for the markets. Now, they do not just participate in the governance of an economy; t
Re: (Score:2)
Such a study would be groundbreaking and a shock to the scientific community since water makes other things wet. Water itself is not wet.
Re: (Score:2)
That is far from settled: https://www.sciencefocus.com/s... [sciencefocus.com]
Is water actually wet? The answer to this question requires some philosophical thinking and depends on how you define wetness. The debate over whether water is wet is likely to continue for as long as the planet is awash with the stuff.
Most scientists define wetness as a liquid’s ability to maintain contact with a solid surface, meaning that water itself is not wet, but can make other sensation.
But if you define wet as ‘made of liquid or moisture’, as some do, then water and all other liquids can be considered wet. Some people describe wetness as a physical, cooling sensation experienced when water takes in energy to evaporate into surrounding air.
Re: (Score:2)
Their redistributive choices are also... (Score:2)
"Their redistributive choices are also highly responsive to efficiency costs"
Can someone explain what this means?
Re: (Score:2)
It means that if you study people who engage in double-talk you'll start to do it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're really trying too hard to avoid trigger words.
Also in the summary they mention "redistributive policies" - which seems to be a very oblique reference to taxing the rich and returning that to the public via social programs vs. trickle up economy.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to avoid language today if you want funding. There are words that can't be used as what they mean because politically they mean DEI. For exmaple:
The Education Department also was concerned about other words in the application, said Adrian Klenz, who works with deafblind adults in the state. He said he has talked with state officials about the discontinuation of the grant.
“I was told that apparently the administration is going through past grants and two words were flagged: One was transition
Re: (Score:3)
"I was hoping we would get brave new world, but we got 1984"
both of those are terrible choices
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but in Brave New World people still had fun.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just an Oldthinker who wants to be in a distopia where at least I'm too high to notice.
Re: (Score:2)
They're really trying too hard to avoid trigger words.
Also in the summary they mention "redistributive policies" - which seems to be a very oblique reference to taxing the rich and returning that to the public via social programs vs. trickle up economy.
That tells us what their prejudices are. There is a strange tendency of the modern left wing crowd to demand continual re-defining words, and using weasel words. If a person believes that progress is making everyone's pay the same, they should say it without obfuscation.
note: there is a problem with huge income disparities. I don't care what Elon Musk makes, but it enrages some people.
note2: the redistribution of wealth is nothing new. The Democrats were calling for that in the mid-70's. The brought us
Re:Their redistributive choices are also... (Score:4, Informative)
Redistributive choices - should we have lower taxes, or more public services?
Efficiency costs - the tax man and the social security guy need to get paid, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Redistributive choices - should we have lower taxes, or more public services?
Efficiency costs - the tax man and the social security guy need to get paid, too.
This. in the experiment the manager never get any money, it's about redistributing earnings between two workers. And one finding is that they are a lot less likely to redistribute if it there's a "tax" on it. i.e. if it reduces the overall money that goes to the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
well, the experiment only checked the zero cost vs a pretty high cost. They didn't label it a tax our otherwise characterize it, it was just a cost. in the game's rules.
That said, I agree that the administrative cost of taxation is not generally what people object to, but rather how that money is spent.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit weird that people who barely participate in democracy care how their tax dollars are spent. But aren't terribly critical of how individual businesses are spending the money they made from selling them products or object to how their employer spends money that was made from their labor.
Well, i should have said people care that a) how much of their money is taken away by threat of force and b) how that money is spent.
The point is that taxation is not something you have a choice in, whereas transactions with businesses you do, to some degree. unless they're a monopoly on a critical good.
And people DO care to some degree about some corporate practices. Dolphin safe tuna, some of the worst abuses of fashion industry and electronics assembly, some animal welfare stuff, some green stu
Re: (Score:2)
It means they care more about keeping the business running profitably than paying their employees fairly.
Re:Their redistributive choices are also... (Score:5, Informative)
They set up an experiment with "workers" who get compensated based on either luck or performance, so some workers get more than others but not necessarily because they did a better job. The students actually being studied are then asked to redistribute the earnings if they want, in either direction (e.g. give workers they feel worked harder more, or give workers they feel were exceptionally lucky less)
One of the variables the the experiment is how much it costs to redistribute the earnings. For example, you can take $1 form worker A and give it to worker B, but if the efficiency cost is 50% then worker B only gets $0.50 and the other $0.50 is lost. This lost value is the efficiency cost.
Basically they're saying that the likelihood and amount of redistribution is strongly dependent on how much it costs to implement it. The more expensive it is to transfer wealth, the more disparity there is between the haves and have-nots.
Overall the paper seems to show that people born with a silver spoon up their ass not only see inequality as less of a problem, but are severely less inclined to do anything about it at all if the solution isn't literal magic. Quelle surprise.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> There's no indication of the circumstances of their birth
Table C1, page 45.
This is also the Cornell University Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, where the median family income for students is over $150K, so certainly none of them are poor.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
What they have done in this study is demonstrate some attitudes of Cornell MBA students. What they have not done is
Re: (Score:2)
If the example was that moving $1 from player A to B would give player B only $0.50, they didn't want to do it.
I'm not sure how that was an indicator of unfairness.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the essence of wealth redistribution in a liberal society. It's not the poor who benefit as much as all those who have a finger in the pie along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can someone explain what this means? (Score:1)
My PHBgpt is down right now.
So Many Recent Stories– (Score:2)
can be commented on with the Nick Cage "You don't say!" meme image.
If only we had a true meritocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
...where it is better to be born smart than rich [cnbc.com]!
No, what we actually have here in the USA is a plutocracy that everyone tries their hardest to believe is a meritocracy because that gives them hope.
Re: (Score:3)
Money gives you freedom, specifically the freedom to make mistakes, large ones in fact.
Once you are in the 7-9 figure range it's actually incredibly difficult to becomes un-wealthy, you have every advantage to make a huge fuckup mistake and either lose very little money or even gain money.
Look at the WeWork guy, he basically fucked over investors and employees and ended up richer than before. I am sure he is sitting on several boards right now. Many such cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And many examples in the Internet-related businesses...
Re: (Score:2)
Other than from very short periods in history, the entire world has been a plutocracy. Right now is no different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also worth mentioning that entry level pay for an NFL player is only 300K, and their career is typically over by the time they are 30-35. That's when most of us are just starting to actually earn money, and think about our futures. Considering that most financial planners recommend $4-$10m to retire at 50, is it really all that surprising that guys whose career earnings often don't reach that mark go broke in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some is not never and when we say "example after example" can we put a percentage on it? How many are actually destitute and not just upper middle class versus rich.
For ever MC hammer there are dozens and dozens of borne rich kids
Re: (Score:1)
What type of statistic do you want?
Last USA intergenerational wealth report I read said that all quintiles are more likely to move to a different quintile than stay in the one they were born into. Also, the high to low transfer was about 10% which doesn't seem too shabby. It does seem like there is significant opportunities out there (in both directions).
How about percentage of millionaires that are "self made"? There are a whole raft of studies that say it's in the 75%-85% range.
Finally, outside a few fami
Re: (Score:2)
See I've been handed stats like this before and when I've looked into it it's not nearly as cut and dry. The "millionaire study" ive found various sources on, the most popular is just from Dave Ramsey and really doesn't have any methodology behind and another that was self- reported (of course if you ask people theyll say they were all self made)
Same with inheretinces, if I get 500k from my parents I am not a millionaire but I have a high chance of becoming one, did that make me "self made". I'd say no. W
Re: (Score:1)
Well, nothing is ever really cut and dry so it's good to approach everything with an inquiring mind. As for links, I have done the "link dump" before so I don't think it's worth it again. I would say focusing it on one thing is unlikely to provide you the total picture you want as the topic is huge and complex.
If you want the easy statistical way to get a feel for the data just look at the intergenerational wealth reports. If "I have no chance because I wasn't born rich" can be disproved by 10% of people go
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a person who's generally open to the idea of a UBI in some
Re: (Score:2)
Sports guys are not elites. They are well paid slaves. Think roman gladiators.
Anyone that cannot quit their job and move to another company is not an elite.
Any profession where drugs that interfere with your professional performance are prevalent, is not elite.
Any profession where the only real contract negotiation is about money is not elite.
In addition, their managers etc. tend to put their own needs above their players. They COULD have negotiated the right to things besides money but the agents only ge
Never ask a man his salary (Score:2)
Nepo babies. It's nepo babies all the way down.
Nothing of value (Score:1)
The failed pseudo-science of psychology is still failed even when it affirms the commie inside of you.
Apologies (Score:2)
Is Meritocracy the right word here? (Score:2)
Most people are not elite because of merit. Meritocracy means you did something great and therefore you also get to be part of deciding what's next. If you have better earnings, you may belong to a financial elite, but that doesn't say anything about if you provided work that justifies to involve you into deciding what should be done with the (common) work.
The good news is that they want to appear that way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
âoeEvidence from MBA Studentsâ (Score:2)
Call me when an expert enters the discussion.
Merit Shmerrit (Score:1)
People tend to hire social-economic clones of themselves, and MBAs being relatively social value "buddyness" even more.
future unemployees (Score:2)
I do not think it means what you think it means (Score:1)
In mice (Score:2)
Or in this case, In MBAs :-)
The referenced paper might be more valuable if it addressed useful members of society