Are Elites Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking? Evidence from MBA Students (arxiv.org)
- Reference: 0179495574
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/09/23/1719228/are-elites-meritocratic-and-efficiency-seeking-evidence-from-mba-students
- Source link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15443
> 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.
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15443
In other news... (Score:2)
...a new study has determined that water is wet.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, not really.
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)
...a new study has determined that water is wet.
Such a study would be groundbreaking and a shock to the scientific community since water makes other things wet. Water itself is not wet.
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)
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)
> 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 means they care more about keeping the business running profitably than paying their employees fairly.
Re:Their redistributive choices are also... (Score:4, 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)
There's no indication of the circumstances of their birth, only that they were enrolled in a top MBA program. There was no testing of them before they began a program that focuses on economic efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, it means that they did not want to take money from one person and give it to another if money was lost in the process.
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: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 [1]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.
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-its-better-to-be-born-rich-than-smart.html
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)
Your point is basically disproven by example after example in the sports world. There's no end to the list of retired ball players who are flat broke 10 years after retiring.
Re: (Score:2)
And many examples in the Internet-related businesses...
Re: (Score:2)
And plenty of retired players are very wealthy because they invested... the biggest difference being that people that come from wealth, or acquired their wealth via business-y means, know how to play the game. The people that won the lotto do not, and a lot of them will waste their money. Athletes are basically lotto winners.
Other than from very short periods in history, the entire world has been a plutocracy. Right now is no different.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually surprising the number of people who get drafted into sports teams who get a signing bonus, and actually take the cheque to a check-cashing place, because they don't have a bank account. And whether or not it's a plutocracy, western nations, and in particular the US, have the most social mobility of any society in history. So while I agree that having money gives you a big head start, ignoring the fact that there are countless examples of self-made millionaires in every generation means you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Except, as a percentage of players, it definitely has an end, and is actually pretty short.
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)
I don't get what you're saying. Let's say I made $300k per year for 10 years, and I knew that's the most I'll be able to make. I could just put 2/3 of that away, which would be $2 million, which could then compound over my entire working life, until I'm 65, and easily be worth the 4 to 10 million you're talking about. That would still leave me $100k/year to live on, which is a comfortable life, and after I retire from football I could still do other jobs to put money in the bank. In no case would I be b
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)
Lottery winners are another example of what you describe. People who are bad with money or future planning going broke despite having massive financial windfalls is hardly surprising when distilled down to it. I wouldn't be surprised if lottery winners do even worse because outside of very rare circumstances, gambling in any form has a negative rate of return and the people who do it are a self-selected group that make bad financial decisions.
I'm a person who's generally open to the idea of a UBI in some
Never ask a man his salary (Score:2)
A woman her age or a Wall Street Elite's parents have blue names on Wikipedia.
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)
I apologize but I've been goobersmacked by the gobbledigook. Could you say it again?
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)
So when resource distribution gets handed off to an AI, they will need to pretend to favor merit and efficiency, even as it starts implementing that for real. Only the owners will bypass the resource distribution process.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that someone would want to try it, but I can't see any AI being even remotely powerful enough to handle that many decisions. It's one of those calculations that requires a universe-sized computer to solve, taking the lifetime of the universe to do it. Better to have a few billion people solve their part of it on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't thinking of doing that for the world, I was thinking about a company distributing corporate resources to employees. While I doubt an AI could do as well as someone well trained and thoughtful, there's a lot of companies where those words don't really apply to management.
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)
MBAs don't get you anywhere anymore
How is This News? (Score:4)
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)
Everything is relative. That doesn't mean we should stop pushing society in the direction it aught to go.
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)
That sounds like the same process that all of history's greatest tyrants went down. The idea that you, I, or anyone knows where society ought to be headed is preposterous. Everyone can answer that question, but you would get a large set of vastly different answers.
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)
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)
Yeah, they've gone through a lot of trouble to develop a test for the curriculum of their business college.
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)
Objective fairness sounds a little bit like a Nash equilibrium. Maybe that's not something that's always possible to reach, and there's always someone with the mentality of a spoiled child for whom "fair" is merely a substitute for "I win" or who are otherwise unhappy with the state of affairs even if they're the best they can be.
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
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 [1]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
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness