Yes, but as tech improves, *new opportunities* to spend more to get non-signaling results appear, and as wealth improves, it makes sense to take more and more of them. So cost disease by itself doesn't necessarily imply anything about signalling/results split.
To make signaling/cost disease link clear: Spending on signaling is relative to income ("I've shown I value this at X weeks salary") while spending for actual results is relative to absolute cost ("Costs $X, benefits me $X+10, I'll buy it). Hence signaling costs rise w/ income.https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/959028248243048448 …
-
-
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.