Rich People Less Ethical Than Poor..

[fluffy666]

Studies involving money games show that upper-class subjects keep more for themselves, and U.S. surveys find that the rich give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than do the poor.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/shame-on-the-rich.html?ref=hp

[Unexpected]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/shame-on-the-rich.html?ref=hp

But i'm guessing that a poor person who becomes rich will give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than they used to.

[erranta]

But i'm guessing that a poor person who becomes rich will give a much higher percentage of their income to charity than they used to.

Actually winners they get preyed on and ripped off by rich hyenas

- which is why eg Lotto etc provide free advisors for winners

[We’re all in this together]

That is why they are rich.

[thedude]

Think it was in freakanomics where they had a study of a doughnut or sandwich maker basically giving his stuff away for a donation to the honesty box, basically pay what you like.

It turned out that the top brass paid less (and even stole IIRC) for the food based on average price per doughnut/sandwich. Probably a few holes in the study but the thrust was the richer you were, the more likely you were to be dishonest.

[cica]

Statistics relies on interpretation. Rich people less ethical? My guess is that it's more down to the fact that unethical gain is allowed to succeed.

[richc]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/02/shame-on-the-rich.html?ref=hp

In the US, something like 75% of giving to "charities" is actually going to churches. Not sure that I would equate giving money to a TV evangelist with morality.

[bogbrush]

Rich people are cruel and evil and poor people are good and kind hearted.

If everyone is happy can we close the thread now?

[wonderpup]

Rich people are cruel and evil and poor people are good and kind hearted.

If everyone is happy can we close the thread now?

I would offer a rational explanation which is that it's easier to empathise with people and situations that you have some experience of.

So it kind of makes sense that a little old lady on a pension might be more inclined to give a street busker money because she to some degree identifies with him and his relative poverty.

On the other hand rich people will often give a lot of money to things like the arts or ballet, things they feel some personal empathy with- while a poor person would not dream of donating to such causes.

So it's about 'degrees of separation' rather than simply that rich people are less ethical- they don't care about the poor because they have no experience of being poor, have no empathy for that situation- it's too alien.

[Arbitrage]

Rich people are cruel and evil and poor people are good and kind hearted.

If everyone is happy can we close the thread now?

Touched a raw nerve, I sense.

[erranta]

I would offer a rational explanation which is that it's easier to empathise with people and situations that you have some experience of.

So it kind of makes sense that a little old lady on a pension might be more inclined to give a street busker money because she to some degree identifies with him and his relative poverty.

On the other hand rich people will often give a lot of money to things like the arts or ballet, things they feel some personal empathy with- while a poor person would not dream of donating to such causes.

So it's about 'degrees of separation' rather than simply that rich people are less ethical- they don't care about the poor because they have no experience of being poor, have no empathy for that situation- it's too alien.

Wot the Rich spend THEIR money?

"Lottery money should be spent on community projects, and services for the young, like support of youth clubs. Not spent on the likes of the Royal Opera House, which is just a domain of the rich. I think it was a total disgrace that eighty million pounds was given to the Royal Opera House."

So how many rich contribute to Lotto every week?

It's a National scandal easily sorted by putting a tick box on your social status and Lotto Loot directed to each strata in proportion of income from each class during the year

[Cinzano Bianco]

Greedy people have more stuff

[happy_renting]

That is why they are rich.

I am confused.

I consider myself poor.

Do I have to become unethical in order to become rich, or will becoming rich automatically make me unethical?

Or perhaps it's all bo**ocks.

[cica]

Do I have to become unethical in order to become rich, or will becoming rich automatically make me unethical?

The research above is hinting towards the latter but the statistics can't tell you that. I would go more with the former; that much unethical behaviour is effectively rewarded in our society.

[fluffy666]

Do I have to become unethical in order to become rich, or will becoming rich automatically make me unethical?

Both..

But let's face it, if you don't think that the law stopping you from selling your employee's organs on the black market is an unacceptable bit of red tape, you are probably not going to become rich.

Stop thinking and start dismembering, I say.

Or perhaps it's all bo**ocks.

Social science 'research' being a bit flaky? Perish the thought.

[wonderpup]

But let's face it, if you don't think that the law stopping you from selling your employee's organs on the black market is an unacceptable bit of red tape, you are probably not going to become rich.

Bogbrush would probably assure you that as long as those employees 'freely' agreed to their partial dismemberment this would absolutely come under the general heading of 'the free market'- the trick being to treat as entirely exogenic to the system (and so irrelevant) the utter desperation that might cause someone to 'agree' to their organs being sold.

So from that point of view deregulation of the body parts market is entirely justified.

Though my own suggestion that the unemployed be rendered down into cat food was met with a disappointing response, despite my valid argument that they are worth more as meat than labour.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

This is just the usual mixing up of cause and effect and associations, that seems to be becoming too common.

The title should read, 'Less ethical people, more likely to become rich'

When you think of it like that, it seems pretty obvious.

[fluffy666]

Bogbrush would probably assure you that as long as those employees 'freely' agreed to their partial dismemberment this would absolutely come under the general heading of 'the free market'- the trick being to treat as entirely exogenic to the system (and so irrelevant) the utter desperation that might cause someone to 'agree' to their organs being sold.

So from that point of view deregulation of the body parts market is entirely justified.

Though my own suggestion that the unemployed be rendered down into cat food was met with a disappointing response, despite my valid argument that they are worth more as meat than labour.

Quite.. organs are worth far more than the leftovers.

It is the externalities, yes.. I think of it as 'Freedom of choice includes the freedom to not make a choice'. A well-off person can refuse all offers of employment if they don't like the terms; a person with a mortgage and bills has to accept one. This means that the well-off person can either achieve a much higher price for their labour, or work on their own projects/business.