Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelZuo | Hacker News Reader

People do spend millions of dollars to make themselves feel better, if they have the capability. That shouldn’t be surprising in the modern world.

Assuming it’s not illegal money and no coercion was involved, then by definition the customers must have believed that the cosmetic operations were worth it, at least at the point of purchase. Since cosmetic surgery is much less burdened by regulation, externalities, and so on, I would say the prices charged are reasonably close to the market clearing price.

The surgeons in Africa may or may not be subject to greater distortions depending on the local market.

Though I imagine cosmetic surgeons specifically in Africa are paid about the same relative to their skill level, staffing level, and facilities?

View on HN

I'm not surprised, just amazed people would say it's "(more) valuable" and the UK must be "doing something right" without a second thought as to whether they're confusing financial value with moral value, or whether the transfer of money really represents a transfer of value.

Spare me the Econ 101, Harley Street is a status symbol, the doctors there are not more highly paid because they're objectively safer or more skilled.

I guess we could call Africa's history of conflict, exploitation and colonialism, and usurious loans from the World Bank to leaders who aren't interested in their citizens' welfare, a distortion of the local market.

It's a matter of risk that I'm paying for to avoid, not absolute quality. I would not wager my life on a random doctor in Africa even while 90% of doctors there might be more skilled than in London. I'm paying to eliminate the risk of encountering the worst 10%. In that light, yes I would personally expect the doctors in London to be able to avoid the worst outcomes better on average. Whether that's warranted is another discussion.

This goes for loads of stuff. I would wager a $30 meal to be fresher than a $5 meal on average. I'm not saying there aren't any $5 meals that are fresher than some $30 meals, but just that the $30 has a lot lower chance to make me sick.

I think you're confusing a sometimes reasonable heuristic (you can get what you pay for), with some kind of underlying or real value.

You were the one who wrote in a monetary figure, thus implying some monetary value to the “worth”. If you want to consider solely moral value, without any monetary component, then that obviously has different implications.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com