Inequalities are often regarded as more acceptable when they reflect differences in effort, rather than differences in luck. However, effort and luck are often intertwined, and luck may decide if an individual can even exert effort. Using survey experiments in the US and Sweden we study situations where luck fully determines whether an agent works. We document that spectators, tasked with redistributing income between agents, grant working agents more earnings and also more utility, than non-workers. This leads to individuals who were unable to work, owing to sheer bad luck, to fall behind both in terms of earnings and welfare.

We use a tailor-made survey on a Swedish sample to investigate how individuals' relative income affects their demand for redistribution. We first document that a majority misperceive their position in the income distribution and believe that they are poorer, relative to others, than they actually are. We then inform a subsample about their true relative income and find that individuals who are richer than they initially thought demand less redistribution. This result is driven by individuals with prior right-of-center political preferences who view taxes as distortive and believe that effort, rather than luck, drives individual economic success.

We report on two experiments investigating whether there is a gender difference in the willingness to compete against oneself (self-competition), similar to what is found when competing against others (other-competition). In one laboratory and one online market experiment, involving a total of 1,200 participants, we replicate the gender-gap in willingness to other-compete but find no evidence of a gender difference in the willingness to self-compete. We explore the roles of risk and confidence and suggest that these factors can account for the different findings. Finally, we document that self-competition does no worse than other-competition in terms of performance boosting.