I want to add a slightly pedantic note, but also slightly helpful to avoid future confusion:
'Purchasing power parity" is a condition on the exchange rate ... the exchange rate level that would set the purchasing power equal between two countries.
In this post, and in Toby Ord's footnote, I think we should just be referring to "purchasing power".
Correction to “The Value of Money Going to Different Groups” — EA Forum
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
Hello! I'm Justin Portela. I got hired by GWWC to make YouTube videos after AI in Context did such a kickass job.
My channel is using that same cinematic, high-production value beauty to talk about everything in the EA universe that isn't AI.
...
In Toby Ord's "The Value Of Money Going to Different Groups", footnote 9 states: “it isn’t more important to help someone living on $200 per year (at official exchange rates) in a place where PPP is high than someone on the same amount where PPP is low”.
This isn’t right; PPP (purchasing power parity) doesn’t matter if the elasticity parameter η=1, but it does matter if η≠1 (so in particular, the estimates in the article for η=2 are only correct for comparing contexts with equal PPPs).
To show this, consider again the utility function:
u(c)={c1−η−11−ηη≠1ln(c)η=1
Let A and B be two people with the same income $X living in countries A and B, which have different price levels. Then person A’s consumption cA is given by cA=X/PA, and person B’s consumption by cB=X/PB, where Pi is the price level for each person. This gives PPPA/B=PA/PB.
An illustrative example: PPPA/B=5 means person B can consume five times person A for the same amount of money. Plotting the utility curves for these two people:
Figure 1: plots of utility against monetary income for two countries with PPPA/B=5
Differentiating the utility function with respect to money, X:
dudX=dudc⋅dcdX=c−η⋅1Pi=[XPi]−η⋅1Pi=Pη−1iX−η
where dudc is the marginal utility of consumption, and dcdX is the marginal consumption of money.
This differential[1] shows the two effects of differences in price levels:
(1) Person A on $X in a high price country, will have less consumption and therefore higher marginal utility of consumption, dudc (2) Person A in the high price country gets less extra consumption for an extra dollar, dcdX
If η=1, these effects cancel: dudc=XPi and dcdX=1Pi so dudX=1X: gradient is independent of price, Pi, for all values of X, as shown in Figure 1b. So the claim in footnote 9 is true in this case.
For η≠1 change in utility is proportional to Piη−1:
If η>1, point (1) dominates giving person A, with the higher prices, a higher marginal utility (the exponent of Pi is positive, so higher price gives higher marginal utility). See Figure 1c & d.
If η<1, point (2) dominates giving person B, with the lower prices, a higher marginal utility (the exponent of Pi is negative, so higher price gives lower marginal utility). See Figure 1a.
If it doesn’t seem intuitive that, for two people with the same monetary income, money should go to the person in the country where goods are more expensive, recall that this person has a lower level of consumption. By contrast, consider people with different price values, but the same consumption:
c=cA=cB=ci=XAPA=XBPB=XiPi
In this case, the money should always go to the country with a lower price because the ΔX is scaled to consumption by Pi. To show this consider the case Xi,2=Xi,1+ΔX for the same initial consumption, described above. See footnote[1] for explanation of the following utility change expressions. For η=1:
How does this affect the figures given in the original article? The article’s Table 1 suggests that under the assumption that η=2, someone living on the mean income in Kenya gets 230x[2] the marginal utility from a dollar as someone on a median salary in the US. But suppose that goods for someone living on the mean income in Kenya are three times cheaper than in the US, i.e. PPPUS/K=3. Then in fact this multiplier should be 75 (dividing by 3). All the upper bound estimates in the article are over-estimates if PPP>1.
Integrating this differential equation between X1 and X2, where X2=X1+ΔX gives two expressions for Δu below, independent of price when η=1 and proportion to Pη−1i when η≠1:
Thank you - great to see work vetting & deepening the understanding of fundamental EA ideas like this.