Utopia Talk / Politics / UK people are poor and dumb

Sam Adams rank	Fri Jul 24 23:43:23 Especially the women. https://x.com/YouGov/status/2080286628711391377?s=20 When given the choice between being given 50k pounds and a 50/50 chance at 1M pounds, Brits overwhelming chose the 50k.
Habebe rank	Sat Jul 25 00:34:59 Ive been whatching alot of podcasts about human behavioral psychology and how it relates to marketing. And optimizing for not shit, is what they are doing. Its a big reason people buy name brands or eat at McDonalds. They are not optimizing for the best product, but gicing them the best chanve that they will not gwt shit, in this case.its no money.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Jul 25 00:49:07 Sure there's a time and place for that. But with a 10 to 1 difference in expected value... This isn't that time. The only reason to choose the 50k is if your desperately poor and 50k is a life changer.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 01:15:48 They are optimizing for "life changing". Completely rational to profit take and exit. Investors do it all the time.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 01:18:49 There was a smart comment there. Somebody would sell their coin-toss to the highest bidder over 400k
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 01:28:26 The actual breakdown at 80& is like so. A person would get 140k on average compared to 500k if everyone took the coinflip. As a group, it is a pretty solid strategy. Minimizing risk individually for a decent pay-out overall.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 01:35:40 Hedging strategies are by no means straightforward and the question here is a hedging choice dilemma.
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 03:08:03 Jergul: 50k isn't likely to be life-changing though. It would let someone on a median salary live like someone in the top 10% for a year, or increase their median lifetime earnings by - I would guess - a few %. By contrast £1m would be life changing. The interest yield would be around 50k every year. It seems more like extreme risk aversion and probably tells you more about sentiment.
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 03:14:59 Actually, not risk aversion, loss aversion was what I was looking for.
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 03:16:57 I suspect the effect would be even stronger if you framed it as "would you buy a £50,000 ticket for a lottery with a 50% chance of winning £1m". Interesting to see what the results of other countries are.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 06:33:43 Most people in the UK are not middle class Seb. Settling credit card debt, getting teeth fixed, having something to contribute to a child's downpayment on a home. But noted that it would have to be a million for it to be lifechanging for you :).
Sam Adams rank	Sat Jul 25 06:54:04 "life changing" 50k isn't remotely life changing. 1 million isn't even life changing, though at least that is a decent bit of free cash. You know how dirt poor you have to be for 50k to be life changing? "Interesting to see what the results of other countries are. " Humans in general are really bad at math so presumably you'd never get it to even evenly distributed but I'd assume there's a bit of correlation with wealth and maybe some correlation with places that see themselves as bold risk takers(looking at you Florida).
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 08:47:44 Elitist prick much? Do either of you know what a loaf of bread costs in your area? It does not sound like it. 50k is life changing if you rent, if you have unmanageble credit card debt, if you have untreated dental issues, or if you have a child doing any of the above. To name a few things that 50k can fix in a lifechanging way. Just think back to when you both got help from your family to make a downpayment on a home. Did buying a home change your life? Did you get more than 50k?
TheChildren rank	Sat Jul 25 14:49:22 if u doesnt have 10k or 20k, then yea 50k is life changin u dumb shit it lets u get out of da "husstle range" and live ur life stress free some wut sure u aint gonna be jet flyin 2 holidays any time soon but wut is da realistic chance u gettin da 1 mill. zero dats wut they tell u 50/50...in reality it is zero
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 16:17:59 Jergul: "Most people in the UK are not middle class Seb." Hence I used median household disposable income - about 35-40k - as a baseline. An extra year of disposable income is a lovely windfall. A downpayment for a house would probably be a huge driver, but you'd need to have above median income to finance the mortgage thereafter and there aren't that many people in that trap of being able to afford borrowing, qualifying for lending but not able to get a downpayment (especially as the downpayment as a blocker has been aggressively targeted with policy interventions). I'm skeptical that these alone should give you an 80% preference on what on the face of it is probably not the right choice if you sat down with a financial planner.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 19:28:50 Seb Saving for a deposit is the main barrier according to 60% of first time buyers. Of course the factors I mentioned do not alone explain an 80% preference. I am just strongly indicating that there are rational reasons not to bet 50k on a 50% chance of a million.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 19:38:16 If you wanted to just measure irrational behaviour, then it would be interesting with way smaller numbers. Do you want 5 quid or do you want to coin-toss for 100 pounds? I suspect most people would go for the coin-toss.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 19:41:06 The difference between those willing to bet for 100 pounds, but not for 1 million is the people for whom 50k is just too much money to lose.
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 19:50:30 Jergul: I don't think anybody (who isn't an idiot) disagrees that for some situations, £50k now Vs a 50% chance on £1m, it is rational to take the £50k. But it is highly unlikely that it is the rational choice for 80% of a survey conducted by a reputable polling agency on a representative sample of the UK population. It is a surprising result in that respect. Part of the reason I'm going to "extreme loss aversion" is that our media have been doing a lot to play up catastrophic national decline (even when the stats are showing positive movements) for quite a while now (as in decades) and that's on top of actualities that are also not great for many people. I suspect if you took any country and asked this question in the form of "assuming you had the money, would you buy a ticket..." Vs "would you rather receive either" you'll get a wide spread. My guess is part of what's going on here is that the UK has become very pessimistic since 2008 due to rolling series of crises - some self inflicted - (GBC, Austerity, Brexit, Pandemic, Ukraine energy crisis, "Kazikaze budget"). You have a generation in their mid 30's that has never known a boom or sustained growth. The problem with NaMBLA is that his policy prescriptions are exactly what successive UK govts have adopted as their approach to mismanaging these crises.
williamthebastard rank	Sat Jul 25 20:03:43 Treating a persons views on the poor - a person who would happily support the state’s mass-murder of citizens under a certain income bracket - as debate-worthy is immoral, and aids him in normalizing his absolute narcissism
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 20:03:59 Jergul: Also I suspect the reason the number is what it is, is that it's being commissioned around a larger question about entrepreneurship and investment and financial savvy that some of the right wing pro growth think tanks have been ruminating on in opposition (I'm glad they are doing something more than regurgitation of US culture war memes as the actual opposition seem to be obsessed with). This is what I meant about the 50k - it's not a question about correctly calculating expectation values. The large spread is - I think - designed to test whether peoples stated preferences are actually in their interests. I agree, they'd probably get it right with small numbers, but part of the point here is to explore whether they apply that to big numbers, as it's the big bets that are transformative. Edge cases aside, £50k isn't going to change the trajectory of most people's lives. It will make their existing trajectory more comfortable. £1m would though. It would bump the median household up a socio economic class at least. You can turn this question very easily into "would you invest 50k into starting a small business that had a good chance of increasing your wealth by £1m". The question combines both "do you have the financial grasp of what would actually change you life" with "do you have appropriate risk appetite". There's a lot of additional stuff there where I'm speculating on the context of the survey etc. so feel free to disagree - but I did actually think about it a bit before first posting. It's not "what would this mean to me".
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 20:05:27 73% preference. Its a Yougov self-recruiting internet poll. With all the flaws that entails.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 20:08:03 "Do you feel you can lose 50k?". That is the core question the poll answers, for all its flaws.
jergul rank	Sat Jul 25 20:11:40 As to life-changing. That just depends on what that means. I outlined some pretty trivial stuff that is life-changing in the sense I meant it. Clear credit card debt. Get needed dentistry done. Help a child with a house deposit. 50k is enough to cover all kinds of important, unmet needs.
Sam Adams rank	Sat Jul 25 21:19:54 "Life changing" should be more than a tiny slice of a house or... Lol... Dental work. I guess the jokes about euros and dental care are true? "50k is enough to cover all kinds of important, unmet needs." Ya, if you are dirt poor.
Seb rank	Sat Jul 25 23:05:36 Jergul: Didn't see anything to suggest it's self recruiting. It has breakdowns etc. "Do you feel you can lose 50k?" No, there's a big difference between losing 50k from what you have, Vs not getting a windfall of 50k. But that's precisely the point of loss aversion and framing. If you frame a question that means the latter but triggers people to feel like the former you get a very different result. But the question is written to avoid that. NaMBLA: Your desperate attempts to emphasise your relative wealth are noted as incredibly gauche and telling of those of us that are well off. Do you remember when TC boasted about affording a tuna sandwich? You are doing a version of that.
Habebe rank	Sat Jul 25 23:43:08 Tuna-gate!!!! Omg that brings back memories lol.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Jul 26 03:24:03 No, seb, I'm merely making fun of the UK. I'm decently well off but no more so than any other white collar job... There are literally 10s of millions in the US in the same ballpark or even wealthier. It only seems like that's bragging to poor stupid nations, like yours.
Seb rank	Sun Jul 26 03:30:50 NaMBLA: Nice retreat. I think you got away with it.
jergul rank	Sun Jul 26 05:49:16 Seb One hint is that the methodology was not given along with the data. 50k is what you have if you do not risk it for 1 million. It is presicely the stake people are asked if they would risk.
jergul rank	Sun Jul 26 05:54:55 Imagine you found 50k on the street that is yours to keep. Would you stake that for a 50% chance of a million? Same question in principle.
jergul rank	Sun Jul 26 06:03:37 Seb's snide "seems a bit gauche to those of us well-off frankly" is the hill you get defensive on?? What is it about people and money?
Seb rank	Sun Jul 26 06:44:36 Jergul: I'm sure it is if you dig into the raw publication. Until I see otherwise I'm going to assume it's decent methodology just because it's one of the major polling co's, and it is *not* robust methodology there's no point talking about it at all. Re the substantive point: By definition most people can afford to lose a windfall with no material change in their current lifestyle. The only confounding issues is where they are being substantially stressed by something they desperately need but cannot afford (unexpected and unpayable medical bill), or need an injection of capital (house downpayment) as we've already covered. We've also covered loss aversion. The scenario is set up to try and portray it as two alternative windfalls to minimise loss aversion. The very strong "incorrect" (from a financial planner view) answer suggests yes, the responders are treating it very much that way. But also, the answer is "70+% of people wouldn't invest £50k to start their own business even if it was a pretty sure success." We aren't really disagreeing here, other than that I think if I was in that situation, I'd probably take the gamble. 50k is nice, but I'm not really sure what I'd do wth it other than maybe go on a nice holiday, invest it or maybe - as you say - keep it for a downpayment on a flat for my kid. But there's a 50% chance of landing a million which would be transformative. But this reminds me of my rule on playing the lottery. I only do it when the jackpot is either 10m+ or 100m+.
Sam Adams rank	Sun Jul 26 06:49:50 "Imagine you found 50k on the street that is yours to keep. Would you stake that for a 50% chance of a million?" Ya, that is the exact same equation with the exact same answer(unless you are dumb or really poor).
Sam Adams rank	Sun Jul 26 06:53:10 "70+% of people wouldn't invest £50k to start their own business even if it was a pretty sure success" That's different. Then you have to do business shit. Marketing. Contracts. Uggg. Shoot me now.
jergul rank	Sun Jul 26 07:46:15 Seb What is a "raw publication"? Substantially stressed by uncovered financial needs like credit card debt, dentistry, a deposit, or helping a child with the same things. Its a threshold thing depending on circumstance. You with 50k are the same as someone else risking 5 quid for a 50% shot at 100 pounds. As mentioned. Loss aversion would have been minimized by using lesser amounts of money if that was the goal. From what I can tell, YouGov generated a poll using an incarnation of an internet meme question. The lottery is just math. As a rule, you stand to lose 50% of what you bet. But if the jackpot builds up enough, you might have a shot at making 110% of what you bet. No more as this is known, so speculative investment targets lotteries when the jackpots are large enough.
Seb rank	Sun Jul 26 10:41:40 Missing word: raw data publication. Normally they publish the raw data too, but their SM feeds are annoying and sometimes you have to go and dig around for the actual tables and methodology. NaMBLA: "Ya, that is the exact same equation with the exact same answer(unless you are dumb or really poor)." Yes. I believe I explained this above. It is however a widely known and easily repeated result that the answer you get from this type of question is heavily influenced by how it is posed and in addition actual behaviour will vary too. It's frankly staggering to me you've never come across this before: homo economics doesn't actually exist and homo sapiens does not generally behave this way. Maybe you should have paid more attention to fluffy studies as you called them, then this would not surprise you so much. Or perhaps you are again fishing for praise that you are a cold, logical being driven by the purity of frequentist statistics and classical economics - "smart" as you'd call it. Autistic as the rest of the world would call it. In which case, yes NaMBLA - we know you wish to be understood to be very clever. "That's different." Not really in the scheme of things. "Then you have to do business shit" And sole traders (a significant chunk of the UK productivity gap can be explained by the reluctance of sole traders to expand into small businesses compared to similar economies - ab entrepreneurship gap) don't have to worry about marketing and contracts etc?
Seb rank	Sun Jul 26 10:52:12 Jergul: "Substantially stressed by uncovered financial needs like credit card debt, dentistry, a deposit, or helping a child with the same things." Yeah - but this is going in circles. One can imagine such factors, but they seem unlikely to account for the very high figure. A cursery look at the breakdown which shows very little change by age and socio-economic class indicates that these kinds of specifics are unlikely to be the cause. "Loss aversion would have been minimized by using lesser amounts of money if that was the goal. " I expect the primary intent wasn't too understand how people behave with small sums. I expect it was specifically to explore how they deal with large sums that are outside the ordinary but not likely to be life-changing on the whole*, Vs a chance at genuinely life-changing. *Edge cases excepted where it can mitigate a life changing loss. "The lottery is just math. " Sure but not really the point. If I win, I'd rather win something like 10m, or 100m. Winning 50m isn't going to really be that much different from winning 10, so I reckon that's where you get into self destructive hedonistic spirals because you have all this extra money that you'd struggle to do something interesting with. Yea, I know this is illogical (this is shortly tongue in cheek) - it's actually just a silly rule specifically to limit when I buy a ticket.
jergul rank	Sun Jul 26 11:42:38 The intent was obviously see how people answered the internet meme question. Published on 22 July 2026 → Survey conducted on 22 July 2026 on 4598 GB adults I dont think it says much about anything frankly.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: