• Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      10 months ago

      I was told by my first economics professor that if I could solve that problem, and eliminate the assumption of rationality, I’d be the richest man on earth over night.

      It’s a problem, they know it’s a problem, they just don’t have a better answer.

      • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You can’t even assume everyone can agree on the same definition of rational. If a business owner is a sadist they might value treating their employees like dirt more than the money they’d make if the business ran more efficiently. For a dickhead, rational self interest could mean forgoing profit to cause misery.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          10 months ago

          Rational in the economics sense just means that people do things for a reason. We’re not acting randomly, we believe that when we put money towards a thing that we are receiving something of value for it.

          Any more specific than that and we’re not talking about rationality in the economics sense any more. Rationality does not mean correct. Just with cause.

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          10 months ago

          …they might value treating their employees like dirt more than the money they’d make it the business ran more efficiently.

          This sounds like the metric for hiring middle-management if anything.

          • roscoe@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            10 months ago

            It would certainly help explain middle management’s obsession with return-to-office policies in the face of all the evidence that WFH increases productivity.