I find this study rather amusing. Even if it really does reflect reality (and I agree that the methodology is suspect at best), you can’t base policy on whether or not a group of people is nice or not. What you need is a certain amount of regulation in place in order to ensure that the not-niceness doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights, which should be the case whether or not you know the level of not-niceness in the population. Doing a study to try to prove that the rich people are the not-nice ones is just a lot of fap fap fapping.
Then it fits very well with the rest of the studies.
Nero Wolfe, right?
I think we should pick 24 rich people at random and have them fight to the death in a vast arena until only one remains.
We could call it “The Well Fed Games.”
How about a compromise - how about we change tax policy so that they are encouraged to re-invest the money in the economy?
That way we don’t have have to worry about some corrupt bureaucrat in Washington simply redirecting the money he stole from one rich person to another rich person who hired a better lobbyist.
Based on 8 years of bartending experience I found wealthy people and generous people have no correlation.
I’m unsurprised as I’ve observed the effect often. However, as others point out, the direction of cause-effect is unclear.
What is interesting in the thread are the pathetic attempts to impugn the study, or deflect attention. I guess National Academy of Sciences is just a left-wing propaganda organ, and we can’t trust this result till it’s confirmed by American Enterprise Institute. 
Most amusing was
So the result that the rich are greedier than the poor was so obvious, it’s a shame effort was wasted on a study. OK.
So the poor are just as greedy as the rich. OK.
Methinks the result put begbert2 into quite a frenzy. I suggest in future that he let his neural oscillations calm down before picking a point to post on.
That’s actually the definition of a wage. Society trades what money it has based on how much various goods and services are worth to us. Any money that we spend on any service is at the expense of something else - like food and shelter. If an individual is providing a service, then this is simple math. They’re earning how much society values them. When a service is being produced by a company, rather than by an individual, their wage is a ratio of the total revenue based on the necessity of that person to the development of the services the company provides.
People who fish through trash on the street are only valuable to society in the sense that it makes us feel benevolent to give them free money. As a society, we’ve decided that financing their ability to live through to old age is cheap enough that the satisfaction we derive from giving is worth it. But we probably divert more of our personal finances away from our children’s educations towards the purchase of new cellphones than we do on providing for the poor.
That’s actually the definition of a wage.
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Wages are about how much power payer and payee have relative to one another and how interested the parties in question are in money. Not worth. People work for other reasons than just money, and plenty of extremely high earners are a massive net burden on society, with negative worth. And it doesn’t matter how much “worth” you can supply, it matters how much leverage you have to extract that money. You can be a scientist who makes a discovery that leaves to a billion dollar industry, but it’s unlikely that you will be the one who benefits much if at all from it, it’ll be the company you are working for.
Our system is very much built around people not being paid what they are worth; our system is built on most people not being good capitalists, on them being poorly paid, hard working and self sacrificing while the already wealthy reap the benefits. When anyone but the rich and powerful wants money for their work, we hear screams about how they are “entitled”, “parasitic”, “dragging down the economy”; but it’s just fine for the wealthy to kill people for an extra fraction of a percent of profit.
That’s irrelevant. People spend money based on how much they’re willing to spend for X versus Y. Dependent on how much they’re willing to spend, a producer will or won’t pop up to fulfill demand. If it does, then money will be allotted to whoever is willing to help out according to what the company needs to spend to maintain a stable, ongoing source of production. An individual may choose to work for less than the market value for his job, but he’s just being stupid (he earned that money doing hard labor for the benefit of others). The average wage is determined by the average man, and the average man wants to earn the full value of his labor.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We will know immediately begin working to remove Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and any Kennedys from public office and public life ASAP.
I am pleased to find validation of my observations that people with expensive cars drive like dicks.
Any studies on which factions are most eager to derail debate with non sequitur?
Sure, polecat. As long as we get the similarly wealthy Republicans, too.
Price—including the price to hire an individual to work for you—is not value. What you should probably think the price of wages reflect is a function of who you think has more market power, consumers (employers) or producers (employees).
If the consumers have more power, wages will go down and they will see a surplus from buying something they’d be willing to pay more for, but don’t have to. If the producers have more power, wages will go up and they will see a surplus from selling something they’d be willing to give up for less, but don’t have to.
In my opinion, since I have to work to live, but no particular company has to hire me, employers always see a surplus, unless 1) I have been paid enough to quit, or otherwise take my sweet time to find another job (who’s that?), or 2) I am a member of a group like a union which can increase the market power of my position.
Many of us making these “pathetic” attempts are actual scientists. But what I find interesting is the uncritical acceptance of this sociological finding, the evidence for which is much shakier than that supporting the proposition that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites (on average). Such findings are fraught with difficulties, and the idea that we have some definitive proof here is laughable.
nm. ramblesome.
(shrug) Agreed.
You can always question scientific work, John. I think we’d all appreciate that position. And I agree with you that it would be all too easy to reach faulty generalizations from the results in question. I’ll even say that at least one person, who is not me, in this thread, has done so. And everyone should retain a healthy skepticism.
We should appreciate the evidence in light of the difficulty of the measurement. It’s not a particularly good measurement. For some conclusions, it is an obviously bad measurement. But I feel like you are taking just those conclusions which would make this evidence stupid or unworthy and rendering judgment, rather than asking and answering what sort of conclusions we might reasonably draw from them (which would, of course, be subject to further study if we were honest scientists).
Priming is a well known phenomenon and that this kind of self-priming seems to induce relatively greedy behavior is really interesting to me. Really interesting. You seem far less than interested in the result, and wholly uninterested in any conclusion. I think it is the most interesting result of the bunch.
It’s really, really difficult to do measurable sociological science. There is so much subjectivity and you don’t have the ability to control the experiment the way you do in other branches of science. I’m fundamentally skeptical of our ability to define, much less measure, motivations such as greed and compassion in studies like this. Then, you have to isolate the causes of these motivations from other causes, whether cultural or situational, and I’m just left wondering what value it actually has. For example, would one find a similar result if done in Japan or India or Papua New Guinea?
And even if you do say “let’s accept the result for the sake of argument”, then what does it actually mean in terms of what we do going forward? Do we know what the “best” amount of greed or compassion a society should, on average, have? These are as much philosophical as scientific questions, I believe.