And having that much access to money changes the way you think.
I’d say this is seems like it’d be a thing with regards to salary* - if you have more (as opposed to just getting by), then you have more resources that can be directed towards investment.
*With the caveat that if you live somewhere that’s really expensive, maintaining the staus quo might eat up all your funds/resources, so you might not have stuff left over for investing. If your job starts paying you $1000 more per year, but your rent starts costing you $1000 more per year, you gain zero benefit. (If you have to work harder/longer now then the overall gain is negative.)
It makes you think more strategically and more rationally.
It’s not immediately clear whether there actually is a change in behavior, as opposed to good selection. (Though it does make sense that gaining more experience (with money) leads to greater skill.) It also might be good to unpack what you mean by “rationally”:
It inclines you to value things that can be easily quantified (like cost, income, time) more than things that are not so easily quantified (like happiness, quality of life, and moral motivations).
This doesn’t sound very “rational”, it sounds like a Goodheart mistake.
Also, one would think that having a lot would enable one to focus on these more, as opposed to less. (Again, is this a change in behavior, or the result of selection—a) people who make a lot of money might be trading other things for money. b) people who make a lot of money might overvalue it?)
But what about everyone else,
The (case for the) Baumol effect argues differently—you have to pay people more to work in other industries, even if they haven’t experienced growth, to pay them (closer to) the (new) opportunity cost. This is (supposedly) why prices go up (and why everything is so expensive).
However, morally-directed, aesthetically-oriented, protectively-focused, and corporate-structure-maintaining organizations benefit society in ways that are harder to quantify or monetize. Therefore, less money is made.
This is why there are other business models. (Libraries and parks, NGOs, non-profits—these (supposedly) aren’t run the same way as corporations per say.)
It would be interesting if these/theories could somehow be tested.
A number of my comments (above) were about possible things to control for.
I’d say this is seems like it’d be a thing with regards to salary* - if you have more (as opposed to just getting by), then you have more resources that can be directed towards investment.
*With the caveat that if you live somewhere that’s really expensive, maintaining the staus quo might eat up all your funds/resources, so you might not have stuff left over for investing. If your job starts paying you $1000 more per year, but your rent starts costing you $1000 more per year, you gain zero benefit. (If you have to work harder/longer now then the overall gain is negative.)
It’s not immediately clear whether there actually is a change in behavior, as opposed to good selection. (Though it does make sense that gaining more experience (with money) leads to greater skill.) It also might be good to unpack what you mean by “rationally”:
This doesn’t sound very “rational”, it sounds like a Goodheart mistake.
Also, one would think that having a lot would enable one to focus on these more, as opposed to less. (Again, is this a change in behavior, or the result of selection—a) people who make a lot of money might be trading other things for money. b) people who make a lot of money might overvalue it?)
The (case for the) Baumol effect argues differently—you have to pay people more to work in other industries, even if they haven’t experienced growth, to pay them (closer to) the (new) opportunity cost. This is (supposedly) why prices go up (and why everything is so expensive).
This is why there are other business models. (Libraries and parks, NGOs, non-profits—these (supposedly) aren’t run the same way as corporations per say.)
A number of my comments (above) were about possible things to control for.