Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gaining wealth linked to immorality

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 9:21:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Rich people are more likely to:
- cut off pedestrians while driving
- cheat at board games
- take candy from small children

There are a virtual infinite amount of reasons that the quest to secure wealth makes us sacrifice our humanity. Why our system is capitalistic, and puts us in the position to do so, is questionable. When I support Ancom, I often say that people would act more ethically under such a system which would negate the necessity for some of our more drakonian measures which are necessary under capitalism. In many of our more drawn out conversations, I usually end on the disagreement with my libertarian friends that people simply aren't "good enough" for utopia (in a nutshell). Well, here is evidence that people are actually good enough - they simply are being tainted by wealth, which compromises their inherent good natures.
Rob
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:08:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It would be interesting to see the actual study because I already see a few problems with the article:

"In one experiment, wealthier people took twice as many candies as poorer people from a jar that had been designated for children." The title of the article is all shock value--first of all, the candy didn't belong to anyone, it was in a jar. Secondly, it doesn't say how many rich and poor people were observed; for all we know, twice as many rich people were observed.

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

"...the rich were more likely to... lie to a potential job applicant about the possibility that their job was being eliminated than their poorer counterparts." Who, exactly, are their "poorer counterparts"? I don't even understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. It would make sense for me if it said "lie to their employees about their job being eliminated" but why would they need to lie to someone who doesn't even work for them and why does it matter?

"The study adds to a growing body of evidence that indicates that the rich tend to be less sensitive than others. The mere mention of money makes people less generous, less helpful and less likely to look for teammates"---the first sentence here doesn't follow from the second. "The mere mention of money" to anyone makes people less generous, so it's not specific to people who actually have it.

"a study ... found that people with more social connections are more likely to dehumanize others." Again, this really has nothing to do with the claim that rich people are less ethical.

And finally, "the researchers wrote the "relative independence" and "increased privacy" of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically." So then the problem is independence and privacy, and not necessarily wealth. You don't believe there should be a state, right??
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:22:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:08:58 AM, nonentity wrote:
It would be interesting to see the actual study because I already see a few problems with the article:

"In one experiment, wealthier people took twice as many candies as poorer people from a jar that had been designated for children." The title of the article is all shock value--first of all, the candy didn't belong to anyone, it was in a jar. Secondly, it doesn't say how many rich and poor people were observed; for all we know, twice as many rich people were observed.

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

"...the rich were more likely to... lie to a potential job applicant about the possibility that their job was being eliminated than their poorer counterparts." Who, exactly, are their "poorer counterparts"? I don't even understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. It would make sense for me if it said "lie to their employees about their job being eliminated" but why would they need to lie to someone who doesn't even work for them and why does it matter?

"The study adds to a growing body of evidence that indicates that the rich tend to be less sensitive than others. The mere mention of money makes people less generous, less helpful and less likely to look for teammates"---the first sentence here doesn't follow from the second. "The mere mention of money" to anyone makes people less generous, so it's not specific to people who actually have it.

"a study ... found that people with more social connections are more likely to dehumanize others." Again, this really has nothing to do with the claim that rich people are less ethical.

And finally, "the researchers wrote the "relative independence" and "increased privacy" of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically." So then the problem is independence and privacy, and not necessarily wealth. You don't believe there should be a state, right??

I will say, every time I almost get hit in a crosswalk, it's by a Lexus. BMW's not so much, so YMMV.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:27:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:22:03 AM, Mimshot wrote:

I will say, every time I almost get hit in a crosswalk, it's by a Lexus. BMW's not so much, so YMMV.

??
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:28:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you have access to a computer in a university library you should be able to retrieve the original (I can't re-post the PDF for copyright reasons). The link is http://www.pnas.org...
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:32:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:28:16 AM, Mimshot wrote:
If you have access to a computer in a university library you should be able to retrieve the original (I can't re-post the PDF for copyright reasons). The link is http://www.pnas.org...

What kind of database did you use? Would you classify it as "Business and Economics" or "Social Sciences"? I thought it would be in a Psychology database but no results came up.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:34:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:27:18 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/28/2012 10:22:03 AM, Mimshot wrote:

I will say, every time I almost get hit in a crosswalk, it's by a Lexus. BMW's not so much, so YMMV.

??

Your mileage may vary.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:41:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:08:58 AM, nonentity wrote:
It would be interesting to see the actual study because I already see a few problems with the article:

"In one experiment, wealthier people took twice as many candies as poorer people from a jar that had been designated for children." The title of the article is all shock value--first of all, the candy didn't belong to anyone, it was in a jar. Secondly, it doesn't say how many rich and poor people were observed; for all we know, twice as many rich people were observed.

The jar markings indicated the candy was intended to be consumed by children. Wealthier individuals tended to remove more candy from it, thus depriving the children more, than poorer individuals.

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

Are you trying to say that a study designed to measure one's income and correlate it with the value of their automobile wouldn't produce the results we would expect - that rich people drive nicer cars? There are certainly exceptions but probably not an overwhelming amount of them. And in a sense, somebody driving a car they can't really afford is essentially tasting wealth (even if only temporarily) and would logically start to behave like someone who is wealthy.

"...the rich were more likely to... lie to a potential job applicant about the possibility that their job was being eliminated than their poorer counterparts." Who, exactly, are their "poorer counterparts"? I don't even understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. It would make sense for me if it said "lie to their employees about their job being eliminated" but why would they need to lie to someone who doesn't even work for them and why does it matter?

This article is simply a dumbed-down report of the actual study. They are obviously trying to report that the conclusions of the study showed that the richer a hiring manager is, the more likely he or she is to lie to a job applicant. And this goes along with logic as well, as most richer people are goign to be more cut-throat about business because if they weren't they wouldn't have gotten in that position in the first place.

"The study adds to a growing body of evidence that indicates that the rich tend to be less sensitive than others. The mere mention of money makes people less generous, less helpful and less likely to look for teammates"---the first sentence here doesn't follow from the second. "The mere mention of money" to anyone makes people less generous, so it's not specific to people who actually have it.

Someone who is more monied is going to be dealing with money more, and therefore be less generous. I'm not sure if you are familiar with what it's like to be wealthy... It's not that you are just automatically a bastard if you are rich, it's that your relationship with others changes. If I came to you and said "Hey Nonentity, I'd like to come visit you in Hamgyong-bukto and I'm buying a plane ticket to come out there." If you knew I was a millionaire, would you offer to help pay for my expenses? Would you offer to buy me lunch? No, you'd expect me to not only pay for all my stuff, but hopefully all your expenses as well and you'd probably feel left out if I didn't go out of my way to buy you a bunch of things while I was there. On the other hand, if you knew I was poor, you'd just expect that you'd be splitting many expenses with me and maybe even offer to buy me things if you felt bad enough about my plight. So there is a fundamental link between your personality type and your amount of wealth even if only because of how others treat you. You cannot hold on to your money if you do not become stingy and unethical, because others will suck you dry at every juncture out of their expectations that you are richer than they are and have more ability to absorb the impact of paying for stuff.

"a study ... found that people with more social connections are more likely to dehumanize others." Again, this really has nothing to do with the claim that rich people are less ethical.

And finally, "the researchers wrote the "relative independence" and "increased privacy" of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically." So then the problem is independence and privacy, and not necessarily wealth.

This kind of goes along with my previous paragraph. The causation is perhaps not clearly indicated, but you can obviously see my logic...

You don't believe there should be a state, right??

Correct.
Rob
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:55:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:41:33 AM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/28/2012 10:08:58 AM, nonentity wrote:
It would be interesting to see the actual study because I already see a few problems with the article:

"In one experiment, wealthier people took twice as many candies as poorer people from a jar that had been designated for children." The title of the article is all shock value--first of all, the candy didn't belong to anyone, it was in a jar. Secondly, it doesn't say how many rich and poor people were observed; for all we know, twice as many rich people were observed.

The jar markings indicated the candy was intended to be consumed by children. Wealthier individuals tended to remove more candy from it, thus depriving the children more, than poorer individuals.


But the candy didn't belong to anyone. The average person is okay with taking things that don't specifically belong to anyone, and can rationalize taking things from a corporation, a body of people. At the time, the candy belonged to the body of people who put out the jar of candy. I could easily rationalize taking candy from a jar meant for children by thinking whoever put it there will fill it up later.

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

Are you trying to say that a study designed to measure one's income and correlate it with the value of their automobile wouldn't produce the results we would expect - that rich people drive nicer cars? There are certainly exceptions but probably not an overwhelming amount of them. And in a sense, somebody driving a car they can't really afford is essentially tasting wealth (even if only temporarily) and would logically start to behave like someone who is wealthy.


Not all wealthy people drive nice cars. And when you're looking at the middle class especially, you could probably expect that there is not a strong correlation between wealth and type of car you drive, much in the same way you could expect little correlation between wealth and the possessions you have (eg. people on the bus with iPhones, designer glasses, Uggs, $700 jackets, etc).

"...the rich were more likely to... lie to a potential job applicant about the possibility that their job was being eliminated than their poorer counterparts." Who, exactly, are their "poorer counterparts"? I don't even understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. It would make sense for me if it said "lie to their employees about their job being eliminated" but why would they need to lie to someone who doesn't even work for them and why does it matter?

This article is simply a dumbed-down report of the actual study. They are obviously trying to report that the conclusions of the study showed that the richer a hiring manager is, the more likely he or she is to lie to a job applicant. And this goes along with logic as well, as most richer people are goign to be more cut-throat about business because if they weren't they wouldn't have gotten in that position in the first place.


But what are they lying about? "The possibility that their job is being eliminated"--okay?

"The study adds to a growing body of evidence that indicates that the rich tend to be less sensitive than others. The mere mention of money makes people less generous, less helpful and less likely to look for teammates"---the first sentence here doesn't follow from the second. "The mere mention of money" to anyone makes people less generous, so it's not specific to people who actually have it.

Someone who is more monied is going to be dealing with money more, and therefore be less generous. I'm not sure if you are familiar with what it's like to be wealthy... It's not that you are just automatically a bastard if you are rich, it's that your relationship with others changes. If I came to you and said "Hey Nonentity, I'd like to come visit you in Hamgyong-bukto and I'm buying a plane ticket to come out there." If you knew I was a millionaire, would you offer to help pay for my expenses? Would you offer to buy me lunch? No, you'd expect me to not only pay for all my stuff, but hopefully all your expenses as well and you'd probably feel left out if I didn't go out of my way to buy you a bunch of things while I was there. On the other hand, if you knew I was poor, you'd just expect that you'd be splitting many expenses with me and maybe even offer to buy me things if you felt bad enough about my plight. So there is a fundamental link between your personality type and your amount of wealth even if only because of how others treat you. You cannot hold on to your money if you do not become stingy and unethical, because others will suck you dry at every juncture out of their expectations that you are richer than they are and have more ability to absorb the impact of paying for stuff.


Fair enough.

"a study ... found that people with more social connections are more likely to dehumanize others." Again, this really has nothing to do with the claim that rich people are less ethical.

And finally, "the researchers wrote the "relative independence" and "increased privacy" of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically." So then the problem is independence and privacy, and not necessarily wealth.

This kind of goes along with my previous paragraph. The causation is perhaps not clearly indicated, but you can obviously see my logic...

LOL I'm watching the News right now and they just mentioned this study... But they went to commercial.

You don't believe there should be a state, right??

Correct.

Wouldn't not having a state lead to increased privacy?
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 10:59:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:32:58 AM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/28/2012 10:28:16 AM, Mimshot wrote:
If you have access to a computer in a university library you should be able to retrieve the original (I can't re-post the PDF for copyright reasons). The link is http://www.pnas.org...

What kind of database did you use? Would you classify it as "Business and Economics" or "Social Sciences"? I thought it would be in a Psychology database but no results came up.

It was linked from the hufpo article. I would normally use pubmed, but it's not up there yet.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 11:09:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Additionally, in terms of people in more expensive cars not giving pedestrians the right of way, people in a hurry tend to care less http://faculty.babson.edu...

I don't think it has much to do with whether you're wealthy or not, but more about whether you're in a hurry to get to where you're going or not. Sometimes I get impatient and I'm not very generous when I'm driving either. I also drive 2 cars, mine or my mom's. I could be driving my car or my mom's car and happen to be inadvertently in the study with the wrong label attached to what the researchers perceive my wealth to be.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 11:28:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 9:21:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Rich people are more likely to:
- cut off pedestrians while driving
- cheat at board games
- take candy from small children

There are a virtual infinite amount of reasons that the quest to secure wealth makes us sacrifice our humanity. Why our system is capitalistic, and puts us in the position to do so, is questionable. When I support Ancom, I often say that people would act more ethically under such a system which would negate the necessity for some of our more drakonian measures which are necessary under capitalism. In many of our more drawn out conversations, I usually end on the disagreement with my libertarian friends that people simply aren't "good enough" for utopia (in a nutshell). Well, here is evidence that people are actually good enough - they simply are being tainted by wealth, which compromises their inherent good natures.

If you read what the study entails, it sounds like a half a**ed amateur study.
Allot of poor people have expensive cars. My stepfather is behind on his mortgage, and is a postal worker. He owns several cars, and one is a corvette. Several other postal workers, where he works also drive corvettes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 11:49:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 11:28:25 AM, DanT wrote:

If you read what the study entails, it sounds like a half a**ed amateur study.
Allot of poor people have expensive cars. My stepfather is behind on his mortgage, and is a postal worker. He owns several cars, and one is a corvette. Several other postal workers, where he works also drive corvettes.

wtf
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 2:03:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 10:55:54 AM, nonentity wrote:

But the candy didn't belong to anyone. The average person is okay with taking things that don't specifically belong to anyone, and can rationalize taking things from a corporation, a body of people. At the time, the candy belonged to the body of people who put out the jar of candy. I could easily rationalize taking candy from a jar meant for children by thinking whoever put it there will fill it up later.

OK when I donate to the March of Dimes I understand the donation jar doesn't immediately belong to anyone in particular but I know my donation is going to kids with MS. Are you trying to say that they don't know the particular child and that's why? Because there is no face behind it?

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

Not all wealthy people drive nice cars. And when you're looking at the middle class especially, you could probably expect that there is not a strong correlation between wealth and type of car you drive, much in the same way you could expect little correlation between wealth and the possessions you have (eg. people on the bus with iPhones, designer glasses, Uggs, $700 jackets, etc).

I think that a car is actually an amazingly accurate measure of wealth. Other than a small fraction that is, yes, an exception, most people's cars show their income quite clearly. Other than a home, a car is the biggest investment you have, so people usually get the best one they can afford because of the lure of luxury and status they bring. A nice car defines your success. Very few people intentionally get crap cars when they don't have to, and very few people somehow afford nice cars when they are poor. Things like phones and jackets are not a good measure of wealth, unlike cars, because they are inherently cheap to begin with.

But what are they lying about? "The possibility that their job is being eliminated"--okay?

Yeah that's a pretty big factor - you're committing to a job that might not exist in x months and now you have to start looking for another job! You could have skipped this job and started somewhere else and started building that seniority right away.

[anarchy]

Wouldn't not having a state lead to increased privacy?

Perhaps in an Ancap society - I propose Ancom.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 2:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 11:09:11 AM, nonentity wrote:
Additionally, in terms of people in more expensive cars not giving pedestrians the right of way, people in a hurry tend to care less http://faculty.babson.edu...

I don't think it has much to do with whether you're wealthy or not, but more about whether you're in a hurry to get to where you're going or not. Sometimes I get impatient and I'm not very generous when I'm driving either. I also drive 2 cars, mine or my mom's. I could be driving my car or my mom's car and happen to be inadvertently in the study with the wrong label attached to what the researchers perceive my wealth to be.

There are confounding variables here - it's a social science. But what's the significance of them? I think they did a good job looking at several different facets to eliminate these variables, and all of them came back in agreement - the richer you are, the more you have to sacrifice morality. And anecdotally this makes perfect sense as well. You don't make it up the ladder of wealth without stepping on some faces. And once you're there, you can't stay there without learning how to develop a certain coldness inside yourself towards the plight of others. If you had millions in the bank and passed homeless beggars every day, you might stop and think to yourself: "hmm. I just bought a Ferrari, and these people may not get to eat supper tonight." Now we can talk about the economics of that all day long but you can't tell me that that doesn't have some kind of effect on someone's morality. You have to condition yourself not to care about the problems of others or else your conscience will beat you down. In effect, you have to disarm your conscience.

If tests came back and said the opposite, then I think that would be more interesting than the results these scientists arrived at, which seem to reinforce the reality that money and morality don't mix.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 2:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 11:28:25 AM, DanT wrote:

If you read what the study entails, it sounds like a half a**ed amateur study.

Reasoning?

Allot of poor people have expensive cars. My stepfather is behind on his mortgage, and is a postal worker. He owns several cars, and one is a corvette. Several other postal workers, where he works also drive corvettes.

So he owns a poor man's sports car. Last I checked, rich people don't flock to the Chevy dealer to splurge their fortunes. Corvettes are unique too, in that they often aren't the primary vehicle (hence "several cars") and are kept as an occasional toy to be worked on and cherished by blue-collar workers who are possessed by the lure of these things and want an extension of their penis. Furthermore, Corvettes tend to stay in circulation for decades because they are a classic model and I doubt all those postal workers are driving 2012 models. They are driving rebuilt sleds that I could outperform in my Buick.
Rob
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 3:59:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm SURE this study was done without any bias whatsoever. Definitely.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As Aristotle rightly pointed out, accumulating excess wealth is a mental sickness. Trying to acquire an abundance of something that serves no functional or instrumental value for the sake of doing it is a sign of an unhealthy mind.

I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:03:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
As Aristotle rightly pointed out, accumulating excess wealth is a mental sickness. Trying to acquire an abundance of something that serves no functional or instrumental value for the sake of doing it is a sign of an unhealthy mind.

I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.

What's considered a "sensible amount" is relative. I'm sure someone in the poor country thinks the amount of wealth I have is sickening.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:04:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.
I agree to an extent. I think it's fine wanting to possess mass-millions, but just for the sake of having the money? Nah, that's wrong I think. You don't earn the money without other people helping you with it, so you should pay back.

I don't agree with the socialist idea of wealth spreading, though.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 4:03:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
As Aristotle rightly pointed out, accumulating excess wealth is a mental sickness. Trying to acquire an abundance of something that serves no functional or instrumental value for the sake of doing it is a sign of an unhealthy mind.

I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.

What's considered a "sensible amount" is relative. I'm sure someone in the poor country thinks the amount of wealth I have is sickening.

This.

And, also, why is saving a ton of money bad?

What if you want to give it to your kids, or for charities after you die?

And who decides what is a "sensible" amount?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 4:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I repeat: Aristotle rightly pointed out that accumulating excess wealth is a mental sickness. Trying to acquire an abundance of something that serves no functional or instrumental value for the sake of doing it is a mental sickness.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 5:37:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 4:04:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.
I agree to an extent. I think it's fine wanting to possess mass-millions, but just for the sake of having the money? Nah, that's wrong I think. You don't earn the money without other people helping you with it, so you should pay back.

I don't agree with the socialist idea of wealth spreading, though.

False dichotomy.
Rob
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 5:45:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 9:21:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Rich people are more likely to:
- cut off pedestrians while driving
- cheat at board games
- take candy from small children

There are a virtual infinite amount of reasons that the quest to secure wealth makes us sacrifice our humanity. Why our system is capitalistic, and puts us in the position to do so, is questionable. When I support Ancom, I often say that people would act more ethically under such a system which would negate the necessity for some of our more drakonian measures which are necessary under capitalism. In many of our more drawn out conversations, I usually end on the disagreement with my libertarian friends that people simply aren't "good enough" for utopia (in a nutshell). Well, here is evidence that people are actually good enough - they simply are being tainted by wealth, which compromises their inherent good natures.

I see some huge flaws.

First, a rich person has a different sense of scale from a poor person. If you say to someone making minimum wage "here's 200 dollars" he'll be ecstatic. Tell that to a billionaire and he'd scoff.

So let's say you lay out some candies. Is it that surprising that a poor person's definition of "reasonable amount to take" is scaled back from what a rich person would say?

There is also the fact that social isolation from punishment is a major impetus behind humans acting selfishingly in most laboratory experiments.

For instance, the "ultimatum game" is well known for the fact that westerners will offer irrationally high amounts of money to their partner, and their partner will irrationally refuse to accept low amounts of money.

(look up the ultimatum game if this made no sense)

What they found is that by creating a double-blind scenario where the "ultimatum giver" knows he will be completely isolated from social punishemnt, social recognition, or embarassment, the giver's offers decrease towards what we rationally expect (wanting 99% of the pie and offering 1%).

The rich have a bit of a social buffer. Punishment, social and legal, is less for the rich.

Next, to the idea that the rich are less empathetic, the key finding is that rich people are just as empathetic as poor people if their upbringing included financial struggle.

Wondering why rich people have harder time sympathizing with poor people is like wondering why poor people have a harder time sympathizing with rich people (consider the knee-jerk reaction most have to the very concept of "sympathy towards the rich"). It's because the experiences are different.

The finding, essentially, is that "people who have been poor are better at putting themselves in the shoes of people who are currently poor."

As to rich people having a harder time recognizing emotion the source states " Earlier studies have suggested that those in the lower classes, unable to simply hire others, rely more on neighbors or relatives for things like a ride to work or child care. As a result, the authors propose, they have to develop more effective social skills — ones that will engender good will."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 5:57:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 2:03:06 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/28/2012 10:55:54 AM, nonentity wrote:

But the candy didn't belong to anyone. The average person is okay with taking things that don't specifically belong to anyone, and can rationalize taking things from a corporation, a body of people. At the time, the candy belonged to the body of people who put out the jar of candy. I could easily rationalize taking candy from a jar meant for children by thinking whoever put it there will fill it up later.

OK when I donate to the March of Dimes I understand the donation jar doesn't immediately belong to anyone in particular but I know my donation is going to kids with MS. Are you trying to say that they don't know the particular child and that's why? Because there is no face behind it?

The claim about wealthier people cutting off pedestrians is also highly dubious and based on speculation and assumptions. You can only assume how wealthy a person is by the car they drive. But some people drive cars they can't afford and don't own their own home, while some people have many assets and see no need for an expensive car.

Not all wealthy people drive nice cars. And when you're looking at the middle class especially, you could probably expect that there is not a strong correlation between wealth and type of car you drive, much in the same way you could expect little correlation between wealth and the possessions you have (eg. people on the bus with iPhones, designer glasses, Uggs, $700 jackets, etc).

I think that a car is actually an amazingly accurate measure of wealth.

LOL Yeah right. Everyone I ever known who drove a nice car, was overcompensating for their lack of wealth.
My grandfather who was a VP and CEO of a company, drove a rental, of average quality.
My dad who worked on air conditioners, bought a expensive, top of the line, pick up truck when he divorced my mom (instead of paying child support).
My step dad bought a corvette, after he married my mom, and as I stated before, he was a mailmen.
and I know several people who bought fancy sports cars because they want people to quote "think they accomplished something".
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 6:04:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 4:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I repeat: Aristotle rightly pointed out that accumulating excess wealth is a mental sickness. Trying to acquire an abundance of something that serves no functional or instrumental value for the sake of doing it is a mental sickness.

Actually Aristotle was not so black and white on the subject; he attributed both virtue and vice to wealth, depending on the circumstances.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 6:20:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 5:37:02 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/28/2012 4:04:37 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/28/2012 4:01:48 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I'm all for making $250,000 a year because thats a sensible amount of money, but hoarding millions and making it a goal to get more is wrong and senseless.
I agree to an extent. I think it's fine wanting to possess mass-millions, but just for the sake of having the money? Nah, that's wrong I think. You don't earn the money without other people helping you with it, so you should pay back.

I don't agree with the socialist idea of wealth spreading, though.

False dichotomy.
Gibber gabber. Explain.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 6:22:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 2:23:01 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/28/2012 11:09:11 AM, nonentity wrote:
Additionally, in terms of people in more expensive cars not giving pedestrians the right of way, people in a hurry tend to care less http://faculty.babson.edu...

I don't think it has much to do with whether you're wealthy or not, but more about whether you're in a hurry to get to where you're going or not. Sometimes I get impatient and I'm not very generous when I'm driving either. I also drive 2 cars, mine or my mom's. I could be driving my car or my mom's car and happen to be inadvertently in the study with the wrong label attached to what the researchers perceive my wealth to be.

There are confounding variables here - it's a social science. But what's the significance of them? I think they did a good job looking at several different facets to eliminate these variables, and all of them came back in agreement - the richer you are, the more you have to sacrifice morality. And anecdotally this makes perfect sense as well. You don't make it up the ladder of wealth without stepping on some faces. And once you're there, you can't stay there without learning how to develop a certain coldness inside yourself towards the plight of others. If you had millions in the bank and passed homeless beggars every day, you might stop and think to yourself: "hmm. I just bought a Ferrari, and these people may not get to eat supper tonight." Now we can talk about the economics of that all day long but you can't tell me that that doesn't have some kind of effect on someone's morality. You have to condition yourself not to care about the problems of others or else your conscience will beat you down. In effect, you have to disarm your conscience.

If tests came back and said the opposite, then I think that would be more interesting than the results these scientists arrived at, which seem to reinforce the reality that money and morality don't mix.

Sorry, I realize that my post was completely incoherent. What I was trying to say (in addition to people driving cars that don't belong to them) was that people are less thoughtful of others when they are in a hurry. One could make the argument that those who are wealthy tend to be more busy, or more on a strict schedule. Then their thoughtlessness would have less to do with their wealth and more to do with their lack of time.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 6:25:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/28/2012 9:21:35 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Rich people are more likely to:
- cut off pedestrians while driving
- cheat at board games
- take candy from small children

There are a virtual infinite amount of reasons that the quest to secure wealth makes us sacrifice our humanity. Why our system is capitalistic, and puts us in the position to do so, is questionable. When I support Ancom, I often say that people would act more ethically under such a system which would negate the necessity for some of our more drakonian measures which are necessary under capitalism. In many of our more drawn out conversations, I usually end on the disagreement with my libertarian friends that people simply aren't "good enough" for utopia (in a nutshell). Well, here is evidence that people are actually good enough - they simply are being tainted by wealth, which compromises their inherent good natures.

The Huffington post, Really, It's an insult to ones intellegence.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2012 6:30:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Lol my mom ran over my sisters foot with her XKR. XD

XKR:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross