Link
There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.
Also:
Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything," Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people." They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
Not surprising at all. It goes not only for money,but for time as well.
The soup kitchens in Baltimore and Philly are almost completely staffed by the poorest of the poor.
There’s a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.
That's the thesis and I agree that the rich, who isolate themselves within their own communities whether gated or just clustered in more exotic areas have no contact with those who need help. But you don't have to be wealthy to isolate yourself from the poor. I would like to see the stats on the middle class as well. Also, there are are two classes of wealthy, old money and nouveau riche, e.g. Andrew Carnegie. He began life in extreme poverty and ended by becoming a wealthy philanthropist and there were and are many more like him, despite the problems they created while clawing their way to the top. Those who experienced poverty, or a lower class existence don't often forget what it was like. Old money wealthy however on average feel no connection with the lower class with the exception of those few who felt an obligation to society as a whole e.g. Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy and even they felt a kinship with the working class through their exposure to via their war experiences among others. I often wonder how lottery winners spend their money after buying all the frivolous things they dreamed of when they weren't rich. Do they generously give to their poorer neighbors or move to Florida, buy a condo and collect cadillacs?
Cap't Jack
Link
There's a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.
Also:
Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything," Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people." They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
:lol:
I think it's obvious. The poor need each other more, they realize that to get through life they need to stick together and help each other. Most know they will never have the advantages of the rich. If they are to survive they need a village.
.....
Link
There's a lot of correlation going on, but the crux seems to be that people who are insulated from the hardships and need of others are more self-interested and less likely to be charitable.
Also:
Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything," Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people." They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes."
:lol:
I think it's obvious. The poor need each other more, they realize that to get through life they need to stick together and help each other. Most know they will never have the advantages of the rich. If they are to survive they need a village.
.....
That is the reason many of them belong to a church.
Its unfortunate the article fails to realize that ‘the rich’ pay an exorbitantly high percentage of all income tax, while the lower brackets pay none.
ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.
It is also the former group that are ‘rich’ not because they’ve amassed a large pile of doubloons under their mattress, but because their wealth is productively engaged, running enterprise and investing in others.
The article is a poorly written diatribe condemning elitism.
bottom line, you can do more with the job and purchase choices created from someone who pays nearly half their income and millions to public services, then from the dollar the kind hearted soul gave you from their monthly government pittance.
-Rob
ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.
The top 1% owned 35.4% of US net worth in 2010, and 42.1% of total financial (non-home) net worth].
Excellent. So someone who owns a company, providing hundreds of jobs and pays a significantly larger portion of the wealth they generate (in both relative and absolute terms) to public services, is somehow less community minded or charitable than the unfortunate soul earning very little, and paying little to no taxes, and supplying zero jobs, services or products.
Great article.
ie, the top 1% pay 33% of all federal income tax, though its laughable to assume they consume the proportionate amount of public resources.
The top 1% owned 35.4% of US net worth in 2010, and 42.1% of total financial (non-home) net worth].
Excellent. So someone who owns a company, providing hundreds of jobs and pays a significantly larger portion of the wealth they generate (in both relative and absolute terms) to public services, is somehow less community minded or charitable than the unfortunate soul earning very little, and paying little to no taxes, and supplying zero jobs, services or products.
Great article.
-rbairos. Are you any good with math? 1% of any population controlling 35% of the wealth is unhealthy. Flat out. You're gonna argue against this?
