Summary
Source 1: The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz:
Conclusion:
The availability of a multitude of choices decreases happiness, increases dissatisfaction and increases paralysis.
Premise 1:
Maximizing choice does not maximize freedom, but leads to paralysis rather than liberation due to a difficulty to choose when there are too many options available.
Sub-Premise 1:
For every 10 mutual funds an employer offered, the rate of participation went down while with fewer options offered, more people were able to choose which option they wanted.
Premise 2:
A multitude of options results in decreased satisfaction even if we are able to bypass paralysis and are able to make a choice.
Sub-Premise 2:
When the choice is good but not perfect, we regret our choice where there were many options to choose from, as it creates a sense of opportunity cost creating a sense of dissatisfaction because with a multitude of alternatives it is easy to think of what we gave up with our choice.
Premise 3:
A multitude of choices decreases happiness as it increases expectations.
Sub premise 3:
Secret to happiness is having low expectations
Premise 4:
A multitude of choices creates a sense of self-blame
Sub Premise 4:
Where multitude of choices are present, if we make a bad or less than perfect decision we blame ourselves and hold ourselves at fault for the decision.
Source 2: You Try to Live on 500K in This Town
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html
Conclusion:
Capping the salaries of New York banking executives at $500,000 is unreasonable as it prevents them from living a life of luxury, which is necessary for them to be able to adequately do their jobs and fulfill their duties to their stockholders.
Premise 1:
NY banking executives need a minimum salary in the millions of dollars in order to be able to live a life of luxury in New York as expenses such as private schools, mortgages, co-op fees, nannies and taxes would themselves cover $500, 000 salary a year.
Premise 2:
NY banking executives need a salary in the millions of dollars in order to be able to afford the bare necessities for bankers which include a house in the Hamptons, couture dresses, expensive twice yearly vacations, armed chauffers, personal trainers etc.
Premise 3:
The ability for NY bankers to function in their jobs is dependent on them having confidence which is wholly dependent on them living a luxury lifestyle. Without these trappings of wealth the bankers will lose their confidence and thus their ability to function in their jobs.
Premise 4:
Without the confidence that springs from their luxury lifestyles, the bankers will not be able to do their jobs or fulfill their responsibility to their stockholders and this is not what stockholders want.
Own Argument:
Conclusion: The ability of bankers to adequately do their jobs and fulfill their duties to their stockbrokers does not necessarily increase with an increase in their salaries.
Premise 1:
There are many examples of financiers who make huge sums of money cheating their stockholders or making poor decisions.
Premise 2:
The ability of a financier to do his job adequately is not necessarily dependent on his salary because salary does not impact intelligence level or qualification to do the job. There are bankers with huge salaries who make dumb decisions for their stockholders while there are bankers with lesser salaries who make sound decisions for their stockholders.
Premise 3:
While a higher salary can increase confidence overall, it does not necessarily increase confidence to do one’s job properly and adequately because these are two different kinds of confidence. In other words, the confidence that a person derives from a high salary does not necessarily translate to having confidence in one's ability to the job well if the high salary is not determined by quality of performance in the job.
