Bryan Caplan recently wrote that if people primarily cared about relative income—simply being richer than those around them—they would frequently choose to move to poorer neighborhoods or even poorer countries, instantly improving their relative status.
Many years ago, I chose not to relocate to Canada from India—even after receiving my PR. On paper, the move made financial sense: my salary in dollars would have been higher in absolute terms. But the trade-offs were steep.
In India, I was a senior professional with a respected job, a company-provided house and car, and my children attended a good school. In Canada, my qualifications weren’t recognized, and I was offered unskilled, entry-level jobs that didn’t reflect my experience or expertise. My social standing, quality of life, and professional identity would have taken a sharp hit.
Unlike many others, I wasn’t willing to reset my life that drastically, even if Canada objectively offered better infrastructure and services. I still wonder how to place my experience in the broader conversation around immigration—especially when weighing absolute versus relative income, and how much status and quality of life really matter.
So true! I have similar problems with Caplan, that while his arguments are in the correct direction, he is not connected to reality enough for his "economic intuitions" to be truly deep and insightful
The relative status concept is something only the most enlightened of lefties will talk about, and only behind closed doors. The standard foaming at the mouth Bernie bro actually thinks their ideas will make people materially better off over time, and the enlightened lefties don't have the heart to tell them the truth.
Anyways, I think you are right that, even if we flattened the income distribution and somehow continued to experience economic growth, people would still feel the same status anxiety.
Then you've got the global status game where foreign lefties believe they are more righteous than Americans. Anyways, those countries will be conquered by high growth countries sooner or later..
Many years ago, I chose not to relocate to Canada from India—even after receiving my PR. On paper, the move made financial sense: my salary in dollars would have been higher in absolute terms. But the trade-offs were steep.
In India, I was a senior professional with a respected job, a company-provided house and car, and my children attended a good school. In Canada, my qualifications weren’t recognized, and I was offered unskilled, entry-level jobs that didn’t reflect my experience or expertise. My social standing, quality of life, and professional identity would have taken a sharp hit.
Unlike many others, I wasn’t willing to reset my life that drastically, even if Canada objectively offered better infrastructure and services. I still wonder how to place my experience in the broader conversation around immigration—especially when weighing absolute versus relative income, and how much status and quality of life really matter.
So true! I have similar problems with Caplan, that while his arguments are in the correct direction, he is not connected to reality enough for his "economic intuitions" to be truly deep and insightful
The relative status concept is something only the most enlightened of lefties will talk about, and only behind closed doors. The standard foaming at the mouth Bernie bro actually thinks their ideas will make people materially better off over time, and the enlightened lefties don't have the heart to tell them the truth.
Anyways, I think you are right that, even if we flattened the income distribution and somehow continued to experience economic growth, people would still feel the same status anxiety.
Then you've got the global status game where foreign lefties believe they are more righteous than Americans. Anyways, those countries will be conquered by high growth countries sooner or later..
PLU