Lead:

When others have a successful career, what they get and see is that everything is going well, and what they hear is praise and envy, at this time, you can give them some benefits is the icing on the cake. Others may feel redundant about the benefits you have given him, and even think that they are stammering. And when others encounter difficulties for various reasons, their lives fall into a trough, they have certain difficulties in freeing themselves, and they urgently need the comfort and help of others, you know that helping others will not bring you any benefits, but you still help others and help them get out of the predicament. The icing on the cake won't really help others, and sending charcoal in the snow will help others a lot.

On November 27, 2010, the official website of the Shenzhen Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau announced the list of housing subsidies to be issued to high-level professionals in the city in the third quarter, including Ma Huateng, Xu Shaochun, chairman of Kingdee Software Co., Ltd., and executives from Huawei, ZTE, Skyworth, TCL and other enterprises. In the list, many corporate executives have annual salaries of hundreds of thousands of yuan or even more than one million yuan.

Controversy over housing subsidies is nothing new. Shenzhen ** said that this practice is to improve the housing policy for high-level professionals, attract high-level talents, and promote local economic development. Talent is the primary productive force, and talent is the foundation of prosperity, and this thesis has become a social consensus. In order to create a good living environment for talents, Shenzhen eliminates worries about personal life, reflects the respect and care for talents for knowledge, and encourages high-level talents to make contributions in Shenzhen. And the care of high-level talents is irrefutable. So why is there such a big controversy?

The main reason is that these high-level talents are already very rich, and then giving them housing subsidies is just "icing on the cake", and those low-income people can not get housing subsidies, and these people are the people who need subsidies the most. The ancients often said: "The icing on the cake is better than sending charcoal in the snow." ”

When others have a successful career, what they get and see is that everything is going well, and what they hear is praise and envy, at this time, you can give them some benefits is the icing on the cake. Others may feel redundant about the benefits you have given him, and even think that they are stammering. And when others encounter difficulties for various reasons, their lives fall into a trough, they have certain difficulties in freeing themselves, and they urgently need the comfort and help of others, you know that helping others will not bring you any benefits, but you still help others and help them get out of the predicament. The icing on the cake won't really help others, and sending charcoal in the snow will help others a lot.

But the reality is that "there are more icing on the cake and less charcoal in the snow". Why is that? If we look at supply and demand in economics, the icing on the cake is more than the icing on the cake, and the less charcoal in the snow, is actually an inevitable choice that conforms to the assumptions of rational people in economics.

I believe everyone knows that the benefits brought by a certain amount of "charcoal" to people in distress are obviously far greater than the benefits brought by the same "flowers" to those who are in good times. But this benefit refers to the person who receives the "charcoal" or "flower", not the person who provides the "charcoal" or "flower". As a rational person in economics, a person who gives charcoal or "flowers" to others is concerned with his own interests rather than the interests of the other party. Obviously, whether it is charcoal in the snow or icing on the cake, the "charcoal" or "flower" they pay is an economic cost, and they naturally hope to get a certain return after paying the cost. Then, as a rational person in economics, the decision of whether to "send charcoal in the snow" or "icing on the cake" depends on how high the expected return of the two is, and this expected return depends on the strength of the other party's ability to return in the future.

Most of the people who need "charcoal" are in distress, or they have suffered a major blow, or they are very poor, often taking care of themselves, and generally cannot afford to repay the help of others in the short term. However, there are also some people who are temporarily in a difficult situation and need "charcoal" for the time being, but it is difficult for people to accurately identify the development potential of such people. A person in a difficult situation, how much future can be in the future is often uncertain, to send "carbon" to such people, whether they can give back in the future is too uncertain, so people are not willing to send charcoal in the snow.

Generally speaking, the people who get the "flowers" have made certain achievements in a certain field, and their careers are booming, and their current situation is very good. So, their ability to return is naturally much stronger than those who are in a difficult situation. This means that those who "add to the cake" tend to get more stable returns. Therefore, people are naturally happy to "add icing on the cake" rather than "sending charcoal in the snow".

The icing on the cake is for the sake of being able to get a higher return, but the truth may be the exact opposite, and those who can get a high return are generally a relief in the snow. Because from the perspective of economics, the phenomenon of "more icing on the cake and less charcoal in the snow" in life does not conform to the principle of maximizing the utility of resources.

Utility refers to a measure of the satisfaction of consumers' needs and desires through consumption or enjoyment of leisure. The greater the utility of the product, the stronger the psychological satisfaction that consumers get from it. However, contemporary Western economists believe that as a person has more and more possession of wealth, the rate of increase in people's satisfaction is decreasing.

For example, when a person is very hungry and thirsty to drink mineral water, the first bottle of water brings him the most satisfaction, and as he drinks more and more mineral water, the satisfaction that each increase in mineral water brings to him is diminishing. This is like a person who has a successful career, if there are already several people who have "flowers" for him, then the satisfaction brought to him by the "flowers" added by each person is decreasing. In this way, he may ignore your icing on the cake. Just imagine, if a person's satisfaction has reached its maximum, and you send "flowers" at this time, then he may not only not thank you, but will be very disgusted with you.

To sum up, we can know that a certain "charcoal" for people in distress is far greater than the same "flower" for people with a smooth career, if we want to maximize the utility of the same "charcoal" or "flower", we should reconfigure the "flower" added on the cake, from the hands of people who have a successful career to people in distress, that is to say, we should have more charcoal in the snow, less than a icing on the cake, only in this way can we maximize the utility of resources, and our efforts can get the greatest return.