So does the assumption needed to make the more conventional version of the argument rigorous--that people all have the same ability to convert income into utility (i.e. the same utility function).--- david friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "Suppose we instead assume that everyone has the same ability to convert leisure into income...."I'm not disputing the logic. The assumption does seem awfully unrealistic.
Presumably, differences in income reflect in part differences in ability to convert leisure into income, in part differences in ability to convert income into utility. My point was that, while the first cause, considered alone, leads to the conventional conclusion that we can increase utility by transferring from rich to poor, the second leads to the opposite conclusion.
--
David Friedman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
