
“Last-Place Aversion”: Evidence and Redistributive Implications - mpweiher
http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/11/13/qje.qjt035
======
whack
The part that I found most interesting:

 _" Last-place aversion suggests that low-income individuals might oppose
redistribution because it could differentially help the group just beneath
them. Using survey data, we show that individuals making just above the
minimum wage are the most likely to oppose its increase. Similarly, in the
General Social Survey, those above poverty but below median-income support
redistribution significantly less than their background characteristics would
predict."_

Sounds exactly like the Republican playbook for winning rural below-median-
income voters. Bring up the "welfare queen moochers" bugbear as often as you
can, and paint them as the primary beneficiaries of the social safety net.

~~~
ars
I read it quite differently. This is economically logical for them: By keeping
minimum wage low[er] they can afford things made by those earning less than
them.

If minimum wage went up, their wage is unlikely to go up as well, but their
costs would go up, so their effective income will be lower.

> Sounds exactly like the Republican playbook

Instead of insulting those you disagree with, how about understanding them
instead?

~~~
whack
> This is economically logical for them: By keeping minimum wage low[er] they
> can afford things made by those earning less than them.

The study is based on lab psychology experiments, where none of the economic
effects you mentioned exist.

 _Participants choose gambles with the potential to move them out of last
place that they reject when randomly placed in other parts of the
distribution. In modified-dictator games, participants randomly placed in
second-to-last place are the most likely to give money to the person one rank
above them instead of the person one rank below. Last-place aversion suggests
that low-income individuals might oppose redistribution because it could
differentially help the group just beneath them._

All of the above suggests/demonstrates that people near the bottom, have a
psychological aversion to policies that would help those at the bottom,
regardless of rational-self-interest.

Also, there's nothing _insulting_ in pointing out the connection between this
study's conclusions, and Republican political-strategy/voter-behavior. If you
think this behavior is perfectly logical and rational, I don't see why you
would consider this connection to be insulting in the first place.

------
marchenko
papers like this indicate that the public discussion of economics should not
treat social concerns like status-consciousness and envy as insignificant
outliers to rational self interest

------
NPMaxwell
This is part of why I have hope for basic income. Everyone is lifted the same
amount. People who got ahead by keeping their nose clean and working hard are
still ahead.

~~~
capitalsigma
You think wages wouldn't go down to compensate? Especially minimum wage jobs?

~~~
noonespecial
I think that they would not necessarily go down. They might go _up_. If much
of the working poor no longer had to desperately work multiple Mcjobs just to
feed their kids they might take fewer of them (especially the particularly
miserable ones) and spend more time at home. Employers would be forced to pay
_more_ and _make working conditions better_ just to get those positions
filled.

Basic minimum income is loaded with unknowns. There really is no way to know
the ultimate results without trying it. Lots of us are starting to think it's
worth a try. We've tried worse.

------
trhway
as the saying has it - when running away from a bear one doesn't have to run
fastest, only to run faster than the slowest in the group. Any improvement to
the position of the "slowest" would mean principal/total change for such
second-to-last, and thus is feared and opposed.

Brexit, 2016 US elections, whole Russian domestic politics - just a few among
recent/current examples driven by such a fear.

------
mlinksva
Non-paywalled copy
[http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/The%20Quarter...](http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/The%20Quarterly%20Journal%20of%20Economics-2014-Kuziemko-105-49\(2\)_20215a4d-e73b-48e9-8de7-f6862054e552.pdf)

------
mlinksva
I've only skimmed, but it seems the redistributive implications are that
people who think they are close to but above last place are less likely to
support redistribution which could raise the level of those in last place.
They don't mention possibility, but I suppose something to further research is
whether redistribution which compresses but may not change ordering (eg
everyone gets same amount or discount through goods available to all, basic
income, monopoly busting) suffers from the same lack of support from those
near last place. Another implication of last-place aversion not mentioned
could include lower class support for oppression of outgroups.

