LESSWRONG
LW

681
lkesteloot
5010
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No posts to display.
No wikitag contributions to display.
Less costly signaling
lkesteloot9y50

I don't know much about signaling, but I thought the whole point was to spend money on nothing. It won't work if the money goes somewhere useful.

For example, let's say that a Rolex costs $4000, and that you could buy an equally-beautiful watch for $500. You're spending $3500 for nothing. If we can believe MacAskill's book Doing Good Better, $3500 is about what it takes to save a life in Africa. If there were a $4000 watch that included both the $500 watch and a saved life in Africa, and showed it conspicuously, I don't know that it would work as a signal. I'm wealthy enough to buy a $4000 watch that saves a life, but not a $4000 watch that doesn't. Only a truly wealthy person would buy the Rolex, and that's enough to ruin the save-a-life's watch as a signaling object. (Put another way, anything that I would buy can't possibly be a signal of wealth.)

In the diamond example, I think your idea would ruin both real diamonds and synthetic diamonds, since no one would want to appear to be a jerk by buying a real diamond, nor want to appear poor by making good use of their money with a synthetic diamond (with 90% going to good causes).

It's like smoking cigars with $100 bills. The whole point is that you get nothing out of it.

Reply