He humanized economics and led the department of economics at the University of Zurich to the top. The most cited economist in the German language area conveys a positive message: human beings are not purely self-interested. In doing so, he revolutionized the way his profession analyzes the world.

This interview by Sabrina Bundi was originally published in Tages-Anzeiger on 10.8.2026 in German. Translated and edited for context purposes by the UBS Center.

How much do you earn? This question is rarely, if ever, asked in Switzerland—and rarely, if ever, answered. There’s practically a tacit understanding that salaries aren’t discussed. In the series “My Salary,” people from a wide variety of professions break this taboo and reveal their earnings—from a nurse to a trampoline pilot and a “Surprise” magazine salesperson to an actress.

In the comment sections, which have since been closed, criticism sometimes poured in: “Then he just has to work harder to earn more,” “She can even afford a vacation, so she should stop whining,” “I would be grateful if I had a salary like that,” or “My work is just as important,” were some of the comments posted.

Behavioral economist Ernst Fehr from the University of Zurich took a look at some of the comments and explains what happens inside us when we learn about other people’s salaries.

Mr. Fehr, our comment sections are filled with arguments, envy, and complaints. Why do other people’s salaries anger us so much?

We all want to be treated fairly. This need is deeply rooted within us. We believe that equals should be treated equally. However, it is extremely difficult to compare different professions with one another—especially when we don’t know exactly what these people do in their day-to-day work. There are many jobs where you can’t immediately tell how productive someone is. If this series publicizes salaries without providing further context to help put those salaries into perspective, people immediately start comparing themselves to others—and that almost inevitably leads to resentment.

Do we automatically think, “He earns too much for what he does,” when we don’t know exactly what the job entails?

Something like that, yes. Let me give an example: We perceive Roger Federer’s million-dollar salary as “fairer” than that of a pharmaceutical CEO. That’s because, with Federer, we could essentially watch him earn his money through his performance right there in the stadium. The pharmaceutical CEO probably also works an 80-hour week and puts in a lot of hours. But we aren’t sitting in his office, so we don’t see exactly what he does. That’s why we tend to view his salary as more unjustified than Roger Federer’s.

We aren’t envious of Roger Federer, but rather of the people in the series who earn much less.

We know from behavioral research that we don’t compare ourselves to the richest or the poorest, but to those closest to us—that is, our own coworkers. Or, for example, our neighbors.

And if they earn more than we do, do we get jealous?

Especially when they earn a little more and at the same time complain that they’re not satisfied with their pay. Then we automatically think, “Why is this person whining? They have absolutely no reason to.”

Or we grumble, “Well, if he wants to earn more, he should just work harder”

Yes, that’s a common reaction, too. Western society is very meritocratic. We view someone’s salary, job, and career prospects almost exclusively as a reward for their performance. Interestingly, this attitude is far less common in China and India.

What is a fair wage?

That’s always in the eye of the beholder. In reality, however, wages are determined by the market: They don’t necessarily reward the hardest workers or those who try the hardest, but rather respond to supply and demand. If there’s a shortage of secretaries, their wages rise; if there’s a surplus of long-haul truck drivers, they fall.

Which makes envy inevitable?

There’s a famous experiment with capuchin monkeys that illustrates just how deeply this is ingrained: Two monkeys each receive a piece of cucumber in exchange for a coin. But then one of the monkeys suddenly receives a grape, which the other monkey sees. When he is nevertheless offered only a cucumber instead of a grape, he angrily throws his coin out of the cage. But not everyone is like the angry monkey.

But who is?

In our research, we distinguish three behavioral types: About 20 percent of respondents are primarily self-interested and have a slight tendency toward envy. 35 percent are altruists who are quite willing to let others earn a higher wage. And the largest group—about 45 percent—exhibits what’s known as inequality aversion.

If a sense of justice is so widespread, why do initiatives for greater income equality—such as the 1:12 Initiative or the unconditional basic income—fail at the polls?

The basic income violates the norm of reciprocity: it contradicts our merit-based culture to receive money without providing any effort in return. In the case of the 1:12 Initiative, at least one-third of the population supported the proposal. The reason it failed is that even people who are averse to inequality weigh the costs that equality would have entailed in this specific case. If the initiative had been adopted, for example, companies would have inefficiently outsourced both very low- and very high-paying jobs. When the costs become too high, the majority decides against achieving equality.

Can pay transparency help close the gender pay gap?

It can help with regard to these sorts of income disparities. However, complete pay transparency has overall disadvantages for employees. If a company with 50 workers grants one employee a raise and this becomes public knowledge, it creates enormous pressure to grant raises to many others as well. If I pay one person 1,000 francs more per month, that costs me 12,000 francs a year. If the remaining 49 employees demand the same, it becomes incredibly expensive. With complete salary transparency, companies therefore have an incentive to prevent pay raises for individuals, which will result in a lower overall salary level. Companies would then rather accept losing a skilled worker than trigger a wage avalanche.

Is it better not to talk about salary?

Yes, talking about salary often leads to conflict.