理性决策的优点 | Benefits Of Being Objective

Posted on

Author’s Note: Scroll down for English version

今天复习宏观经济的时候突然想到了这个问题，在宏观经济中，一个人的工资取决于

其中

指的是上学的时长

其中 是预期工资， 是你的能力点数， 是每能力点数能收获的工资。
首先这个公式仅仅是一个估测模型 - 意味着它在任何情况下都不能作为真实世界的任何参考，但我觉得在直觉上，我可以用这个模型分析整个世界的运作模式。
但在我们开始之前，我需要慎重的指出我学到的这个入门级的经济学课对市场做出了如下的假设：

  1. 市场中没有任何的信息差，意味着你的能力点数是完全公开且清晰可见的。
    1. 但在现实中雇主需要先对潜在的员工进行评估，以确认他们是否能胜任工作
  2. 能力点数的增长成指数型增长
    1. 个人认为其实能力点数的增长是线性然后逐渐趋于平缓的，但是工资对于能力点数的增长是指数型的
    2. 而且上学时长与能力点数也不是完全1.0的正相关
    3. 但也不完全，针对这个要做一个合理的模型是非常困难的
  3. 假设银行对借贷/存款没有数量限额

在这些假设成立的情况下，假设一个人可以自由的分配TA的时间(工作/娱乐)，那么为了最大化TA的快乐程度，完全理智的TA需要做如下优化问题:

  1. 最大化快乐函数
    1. 这里的和是指第一年的工作时间和娱乐时间，是指第一年的消费
  2. 限制自己的消费不超过自己这辈子能赚的总量
    1. 当年不足的部分可以借贷
    2. 当年多余的部分可以存起来

这个问题的解是一个非常简单的函数，但是我不想在这里写出来，因为我觉得这个问题的解不是这篇文章的重点，而是这个问题的解的意义。

由于理性的消费最大化了这个优化问题，非理性的决策一旦导致了跟理性决策不一样的投入，就注定了这个人的快乐程度会下降，另一种意义是这个人浪费了自己的先天资源。当然这个模型只能当作业余分析的原因也是&因为没有任何人可以提前预知自己的需求和快乐程度，同时人本身就是带偏见的，所以这个模型只能当作一个参考。

但不管如何，我们还是需要多多了解自己，提前对自己的消费，工资，和资产投资进行规划，这样才能在未来的生活中更加的快乐。

I suddenly thought of this question when I was reviewing macroeconomics today. In macroeconomics, a person’s salary depends on

where

refers to the length of schooling

Where is the expected salary, is your skill points, and is the salary you can get per skill points.
First of all this formula is only a model for estimation - meaning it cannot be used as any reference to the real world under any circumstances, but I feel that intuitively, I can use this model to analyze the working mode of the whole world.
But before we get started, I need to be careful to point out that this introductory economics class I took made the following assumptions about markets:

  1. There is no information gap in the market, which means that your ability points are completely open and clearly visible.
    1. But in reality, employers need to assess potential employees first to confirm whether they are qualified for the job
  2. The growth of skill points is exponential
    1. I personally think that the growth of ability points is linear and then gradually flattened, whereas the growth of salary is exponential for ability points
    2. Moreover, the length of schooling and the ability points are not completely positively correlated with a coefficient of 1.0
    3. But anyhow, it is very difficult to make a reasonable model for this
  3. The bank has no quantitative limit on loans/deposits

In the case where these assumptions are established, assuming that a person can freely allocate his/her time (work/entertainment), then in order to maximize the his/her happiness, a completely rational person needs to do the following optimization problem:

  1. Maximize the happy(utility) function
    1. Here and refer to the working time and entertainment time in the first year, and refers to the consumption in the first year
  2. Limit his/her spending to no more than what he/she can earn in his/her lifetime
    1. The shortfall of the current year can be borrowed
    2. The surplus of the current year can be saved

The solution to this problem is a very simple function, but I don’t want to write it here, because I think the solution to this problem should not be the focus of this article, but the meaning of the solution to this problem.

Since rational consumption maximizes this optimization problem, once irrational decision-making leads to decisions that is different from rational decision-making, it is almost certain that the happiness level of this person will decline. Another interpretation of this is that this person has wasted his innate resources. . Of course, the reason why this model can only be used as an amateur analysis is because no one can predict their own needs and happiness in advance, and people themselves are biased, so this model can only be used as a reference.

But no matter what, we still need to know more about ourselves and plan our consumption, salary, and asset investment in advance, so that we can be happier in our future life.