Status vs. Wealth: Psychologist Argues That Humans Prefer Status Over Wealth; However, Many of Us Are Not Interested in Status, and Wealth Creation Is Not Easy

    Psychologist Adam Omary, of the Cato Institute, argues that humans prefer status, or rank, over wealth, due in part to it being a zero-sum idea. Status is relative. It is ranked into a hierarchy from low to high. Wealth is different. It can be created with innovation, insight, investment, and technology. Thus, as he notes, rank is a zero-sum idea since if your rank goes up, someone else’s likely goes down and vice versa.

     Omary considers Elon Musk’s brief stint as a trillionaire. His net worth later dropped to $850 billion, but no one complained about the loss of wealth on the market when SpaceX’s stock dropped, as they did when it grew, and Musk’s fortune grew with it. I’m not sure that is a very good argument, but I think his point is that wealth should be celebrated rather than denigrating its uneven distribution, known as inequality, especially in cases where those at the bottom are benefiting as well.

“Economists can explain the difference between income and equity, paper wealth and spendable cash. But the real dispute is psychological. Humans dislike inequality even when a rising tide lifts all boats. If every centibillionaire donated over 99 percent of their net worth to charity and kept a single billion, people would still lament that billionaires exist.”

     He cites several social psychology experiments that strongly suggest that people prefer status over wealth.

“Social psychology experiments consistently show that people care more about rank than wealth. Many will take a smaller income if it places them above their neighbors over a larger one that places them below, and their health and happiness track relative standing more than absolute income.”

     I’m thinking that while status/rank is zero-sum, the pool can grow or shrink, which changes some of the relationships. If one is number one in a pool of 10 people and drops to number 11 in a pool of 100 people, that person’s status dropped due to the change in pool size. While that doesn’t change the conclusions, it means that pool size is a factor to be considered.

     When I was younger and trying to develop my career, I suppose I did care more about status, sometimes seeking more recognition for my work and capabilities. But now that I am older and no longer traditionally employed, I cannot care less about status, as long as I have enough wealth to allow me to live a fairly comfortable life. Thus, for me at this stage of my life, wealth is more important than status.

     He argues that envying that status of another has evolutionary implications:

“Envy is not a free-floating vice. It is a system for detecting consequential differences in rank and resources. Humans evolved in groups that were both cooperative and competitive. Food sharing and reciprocal exchange produced mutual gains, but access to land, allies, and mates was limited, and a rival’s rise could shrink one’s own share. Monitoring who had more was adaptive.”

     He seems to suggest that Musk’s excessive wealth should be celebrated rather than denigrated. However, I would counter that much of that denigration has to do with our perceptions of fairness. He pays a much lower effective tax rate than we do. He can manipulate how he receives and stores his wealth, through stock, stock options, stock-backed investments, etc., which give him tax advantages relative to us and options that we simply do not have access to.

     Omary concludes:

“Zero-sum belief also converts personal comparison into coalitional morality. A man who resents a richer neighbor feels small. A man who resents a class of exploiters feels righteous. The English writer George Orwell noticed the pattern: socialism is often motivated more by hatred of the rich than by love of the poor.”

“Musk may regain his fourth comma or shed another few hundred billion. His rank can swing violently without any matching change in everyone else’s circumstances. That is why the gains produce outrage and the losses silence. The number is being read as a status score.”

     I found the Orwell quote to be interesting and likely spot on. The real problem is not inequality but bringing the poor up to standard. If everyone were wealthy enough to survive comfortably, I would have little to no care about the super-wealthy. Is Musk simply creating wealth for himself and his investors that would never be there if he wasn’t? Maybe, but we still see it as excess, since that wealth is not being distributed to those who need it. I would argue that while wealth is not strictly zero-sum, it does have characteristics of being zero-sum or nearly so, since it is not easy to create and there does not seem to be enough to go around.  

     Omary's summary is below:

     Are we really seeing productive success as exploitation? Perhaps, but if so, it is not just exploitation by one human, but exploitation by the system itself, which does not tax the super-wealthy enough. 

     I have been living comfortably over the past year or so on less than a thousand dollars per month. Thus, I would ask, who the hell really needs or even can use a billion dollars, let alone a trillion? I would also argue that the outrage is not strictly about status but about fairness and the absurdity of those with such massive wealth. In fact, for many of us, it is indeed more about fairness than status. 

 

  

 

References:

 

Why Humans Care More About Rank Than Riches: Wealth Isn't Zero-Sum. Status Is. Adam Omary. HumanProgress.org. August 21, 2026. Why Humans Care More About Rank Than Riches - Human Progress