Slashdot Mirror
Are Rich People Less Moral?
sciencehabit writes "New research suggests that the upper classes are more likely to behave dishonorably than those lower on the economic spectrum. The rich are more likely to cheat, steal, and even disobey traffic laws than those with less money and power (abstract). Curiously, in one experiment, Prius drivers also behaved badly, regardless of their wealth."
But only because they don't interact with peasants.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
i demand that this story be buried at once.
Those who lie, cheat, steal, and ignore any law they can get away with are more likely to strike it rich. Also, prius drivers are douchebags.
It's just easier to get rich if you're amoral to begin with.
It would explain Congress.
well, maybe if your money comes from tax payer funds. but if you make your money by giving people what they want, you are by definition more moral than those who don't give as many people as much of what they want.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Up to a point, then they become moral again because it no longer means as much. I think it occurs once you get past the billionaire mark: Examples: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates...
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
Napoleon Bonaparte
It's the sense of entitlement (perhaps appropriate for some rich people...not even remotely appropriate for the Prius drivers) that does it. When someone sees their job/life/goal as being "important", they figure that they should be "allowed" a bit more leeway. I doubt it's a conscious decision on their parts (at least for most), but I've noticed the same thing: The higher up on the totem pole you get, you notice an increase in the undeserved entitlements that are claimed.
It's not that they're less moral, it's that they have the resources to deal with the consequences, and take a calculated risk.
A speeding ticket is a lot more of a penalty to a pizza delivery guy than it is to Mitt Romney.
....is the root of all evil (or so the most moral book says)
I'm betting that Prius drivers behave better than BMW drivers. Just guessing, though. Time to apply for a federal research grant to be sure. I'll be sure to fake the prior literature review.
You don't think rich people work hard, do you?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Of course they do. This should surprise nobody.
Generally speaking, a person whose actions are bound by respect for moral and legal institutions is going to have trouble succeeding against a person whose actions are not bound to such considerations (or only loosely bound.) Run this model several million times, and you end up with a small, powerful group of people who are, comparatively speaking, less moral than the large, less powerful group of people they were willing to step on to get to the top.
The only place where cheaters never win is fiction. Everywhere else, they tend to run the show.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Which is it? Wealthy people are more likely to become dicks, or the kind of people who would openly behave this poorly tend to become wealthy? I'm curious as to whether or not having large amounts of money corrupts an otherwise mild-mannered person, or if the personality type/living environment/etc that leads to the accumulation of wealth also tends to be those that would already cause someone act like a douche, regardless of financial status.
It seems to be a meaningless cultural bias to define "cheat, steal, and even disobey traffic laws" as a weird mixture of morality and honor.
Also if you read the article the cheat/steal testing was done based not on "rich/poor" but social class. Higher class students vs lower class not necessarily rich..
I thought the funniest one was the folks who would take more candy if they were convinced they were more wealthy. Well, duh, the more money I have the more likely I'll buy/take/use something more expensive. Oldest marketing scam in the book, convince the victim they're richer than they are "you qualify for a $750K loan!" etc.
Traffic law violation is another "duh" moment. Who's more likely to afford a lawyer, insurance? Who's more likely to be illegally carrying a weapon, drugs, be intoxicated, have a warrant? It also assumes traffic laws are based on "morality" and "honor" when they're based mostly on enhancing revenue.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Poor people think rich people are assholes.
More at 11.
PS: Oh please, look me in the eyes and tell me with a straight face that inner-city thug youth don't lie, cheat and steal as much as the wealthy.
When I was a teenager my dad would get sometimes in excess of $1000 in traffic and parking tickets a month (this was before the state instituted a point system). Why not just follow the rules or park where he was supposed to? 1. He owned the local tow company and they wouldn't pull his car unless they wanted to lose his job 2. He could afford not to.
Donated his money when he died to a mormon temple to keep myself and my sisters from it. (If I can't take it with me I won't let anybody else enjoy it.) So the local temple got a nice $5,000,000 (1979 dollars) extension and rennovation and my sisters and I received lawn furniture sets worth about $300.
Fuck him
The rich are more likely to cheat, steal, and even disobey traffic laws than those with less money and power
Disobeying traffic laws is a no brainer. They can better afford the ticket and insurance rate hikes.
Cheating & stealing? They can afford better legal representation so are less likely to be punished if they do get caught.
This premise is endearingly psychotic.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
How do you think they got rich in the first place? With honesty and self-sacrifice?
Usually, with using Steve Jobs as an extreme example, willing to do what it takes to succeed, even if doing those things hurts others
I'm rather certain that's the way nature works, the big lion didn't get that way by excusing himself from eating a hundred zebras to eat nuts and berries instead.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
In the book "Freakonomics", about how the statistical tools economists use can bring some light to other areas of social study, the tale is told of a guy who ran a business model of dropping off bagels at office coffee rooms around town, with a voluntary-contribution box, and kept meticulous records for many years of his repayment rate. Turns out the upper floors (as in, upper management) and near corner offices and so on, had the lowest rate.
The authors were careful about drawing conclusions, though they entertained by speculating - was it "have to run to my important meeting, that's more important than digging around for change, my time is worth $900/hour", or was it just a "sense of entitlement"?
This may tip the needle towards "self-entitled bastards", though it remains speculation, of course, not conclusion.
The Prius thing may indicate another reason for being a "self-entitled jerk", of course: environmental smugness. Now I'm just TOTALLY speculating, obviously, but I'd add a data point: my rotten self, and all the rotten cyclists like me. We disobey traffic laws with wild abandon, we're notorious for it. And bikes are vastly more environmental (and, better yet, non-road-space consuming) than Priuses. I am shamelessly anti-authoritarian on a bike the way I am not in a car.
I claim, in my own head (never had to try it on a cop, and don't plan to) that I coast through stop signs and so forth because of the vast importance of Conserving Momentum. And the roadway just "owes" me a little slack because I take up so little of it. And I'm only risking my own damfool neck, I can at most cause others a dent. Or something. If you can get self-entitled by contributing to the common weal that little, imagine how much you get from doing work others value at $900 per hour...
It's about perceived superiority. There's an inherent tendency to be dismissive of others we perceive to be 'inferior' in some way - whether the differentiator is wealth, intelligence, physical prowess, popularity, or even moral righteousness (which is likely to be higher among Prius owners). It takes a fair amount of empathy and moral awareness to overcome this inclination, and the common perception is that these 'softer' skills are much less common among the highly wealthy - so they become the standard-bearers for this dynamic.
An object at rest cannot be stopped!
... we need More Regulation of Government! Checks and balances and a restoration of constitutional law.
THEY CAN'T HELP THEMSELVES. And it doesn't matter who they are. You, me, us, them? It's a human condition and needs to be compensated for. There is no cure and no "right people."
A little bit. Just my own $0.02.... I used to own an engineering company. We were mostly based on repeat business and word of mouth, and had a steady clientele. We did OK. Our typical hours were four 9s and a 4 and most of us would be gone by Friday afternoon. We had a reputation for being fair to our clients and charging a fair price. I would not accept shady clients or do anything that was unethical.
One of my major competitors was a workaholic with the instincts of a jackal; you were a disappointment if you worked less than 60 hours a week, for which he paid you your base salary. He worked probably 80 to 100 hours a week and took his laptop on vacations. He spent 3 hours a week with his kids; one hour per child. He had a reputation for being voraciously money hungry and would skirt the law on almost everything as long as there was profit in it. He had no problem cheating clients, employees, or the government.
He consistently made far more money than I did. He didn't care what his reputation was or how much damage he did to his family or the lives of his employees or the community. He had no friends that I know of.
I on the other hand still keep in touch with my former employees, sleep well at night, and live a modestly successful life.
So yes, from my own limited experience, you get richer than me by being morally corrupt.
Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait (The secret of grand fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.)~Honoré de Balzac, Le Père Goriot (1835)
I, of course, immorally stole that from somewhere on the interwebs.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Scientist prove power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely news at 11.
Well, that's because Toyota has a little correlation to the Pringles's motto: "Once you pop, you can't stop"... :-)
Money doesn't spoil character, money reveals character.
Most people haven't fully gauged their inert moral capabilities, I'd suspect. Most of it is adapted and constructed, and once people get rich and have access to power and independace from others, it's these flaky concepts of morality that disintegrate.
Someone with real character and moral concepts that one does not neccesarly derive from the need to be nice to other people due to scarce resources is more likely to maintain his values, wether he is rich or not.
It's for this reason that I'm very curious about what would happen with my behaviour if I, for whatever reason, should someday turn rich. I like to believe that only little of my character and my behaviour towards other people would change, but never the less I'd be curious to know if that actually is the case.
However I do believe that most people reveal an underdeveloped character when exposed to certain amounts of wealth over longer periods of time. Today education througout the world rarely focuses on values independant of economic wealth - which shows how poor humanity actually is.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I certainly have noticed this. I live in San Francisco, and I count on average 1 prius parked on the street for each city block I drive. They are everywhere. I am continually frustrated with these drivers because they a) Drive overly defensively, to the point where you cannot make normal predictions about driving behavior. b) The cars have poor acceleration, so the cars always appear to go very slowly for no good reason. c) I have seen more Prius drivers fail to use their turn signals. I do not know why this is.
That would be more communistic. Also, be careful what you wish for. On a global scale, you may well discover that you are the 1%.
Maybe it's related to partially to Prosperity Theology. "If I'm blessed by God with all this prosperity then what I want to do must be morally right."
To quote the ever smug Leona Helmesly, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes..." (And why is it that the most nauseating psychopaths like Helmesly, Milken, Fleiss, et. al always sport that stupid grin that just cries for a fist.)
Surely anyone who's had contact with wealthy people have noticed their underlying assumption of "I am above all rules. Those are for the little people."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
This is nothing but an attempt by a few self-interested college professors to apply the "It's Science (tm) so it must be True!" concept to the current zeitgeist of class warfare nonsense.
"psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley, and colleagues devised a series of tests, working with groups of 100 to 200 Berkeley undergraduates or adults recruited online. Subjects completed a standard gauge of their social status, placing an X on one of 10 rungs of a ladder representing their income, education, and how much respect their jobs might command compared with other Americans."
And we honestly expect this to be a representative sample of "rich people"? How many CEOs and entrepaneurs have the time to fill out online surveys and then report to UC Berkeley to roll dice and steal candies from a jar? The survey is essentially attracting the same sort of people who click on "WORK FROM HOME AND EARN $10,000 A DAY!!!1!!" banner ads, not Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. That these people are self-identifying their wealth and social status further introduces significant bias into the experiment.
"The team's findings suggest that privilege promotes dishonesty. For example, upper-class subjects were more likely to cheat. After five apparently random rolls of a computerized die for a chance to win an online gift certificate, three times as many upper-class players reported totals higher than 12—even though, unbeknownst to them, the game was rigged so that 12 was the highest possible score."
We've just established that the selection criteria for identifying "rich people" was flawed. It's not surprising to me that the people who would lie in an online survey and say that they're "rich" would then lie again to try to win a prize.
"Piff says the study may shed light on the hotly debated topic of income inequality. "Our findings suggest that if the pursuit of self-interest goes unchecked, it may result in a vicious cycle: self-interest leads people to behave unethically, which raises their status, which leads to more unethical behavior and inequality.""
Self-interest leading to unethical behavior? Like, perhaps, a college professor with an agenda perverting the scientific method by creating a horribly flawed, biased study and trying to pass it off as fact?
FTFA:
>working with groups of 100 to 200 Berkeley undergraduates or adults recruited online.
Ya gotta be kidding me.
There is, of course, the recent research that points out that US-American psychology is, largely, a profile of the US-American undergrad population (ie, the population that are easily available to find, to study).
That said, if you choose Berkeley undergrads, then you're going to get results that match them. Berkeley is a large anonymous state institution, where an undergrad has every incentive to cheat, and where only the third incident of plagarism has any chance of repercussions. (In pactice, GSIs and many professors are unlikely to report plagarism, no only because of the paperwork, but because it's likely to have negative repercussions for them).
Change this context to Stanford or the East Coast Ivies, etc, and you've got a very different system. Getting caught cheating or plagarizing-- once-- at a small college or many of the Ivies, is a death sentence-- immediate explusion, and if you do choose to come back in a year, you're going to be a paraih among your peers and under very close scrutiny.
My guess is this study, like so much social science, isn't speciifc and precise enough to say anything.
I wouldn't say that rich people are less moral, they just tend to commit different crimes. Mebers of higher classes have subtle sins like theft and cheating. On the other hand, people of lower classes tend to commit more violent crimes, which weren't measured in the test.
The subjects who lied about their social/economic status on the survey were more likely to cheat on the test.
Except that they selected their own wealth and standing on a scale of 1 to 10. I think it's more likely that some people lied and put themselves in higher income brackets then continued to lie and cheat throughout the test.
I think it may be a result of choosing your own definitions of success. Some people choose to measure success by pure dollar amount in their banks. And sometimes we forget that when we compare ourselves to the 'rich' people that we have placed a greater priority on other things in life than pure money. That's what this guy sounds like he was after. Woe to they who hit the end of their lives and wonder what it was they did with all of it.
I'm not saying money isn't a priority, but I think it's important to remember that time should be spent building up things that can have a more permanent basis, such as family, friends and community. Or things which give you a greater sense of peace (vs. something which causes panic, hate or anger... which causes adrenaline to flow and wears down your body).
This is what the parent post was trying to say, I believe.
Generally, the penalty is monetary.
Who has the money to risk?
I got a speeding ticket in college for $100 and wondered, how is this fair?
My penalty for speeding is not eating for a week.
A rich persons penalty is less wine with dinner.
I have a 2006 Prius and I'm now an ultra-safe driver. I used to have a BMW and I'm that asshole that passed people doing 110mph on a 2-lane bridge. Now I make full stops, am ~always within about 5 mph of the speed limit (but not below it), and I signal. And as you know, my anecdote disproves this study.
Up to a point, then they become moral again because it no longer means as much. I think it occurs once you get past the billionaire mark: Examples: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates...
First, there are just as many counter examples Steve Jobs, Larry Elison, Donald Trump, etc, etc...
Secondly, I don't think Mr Buffett nor Mr Gates are particularly moral, they seem to be really just doing this to "pad" their future historical biography (not unlike JD Rockefeller).
Apparently, Mr Buffett wanted to give his money for his wife to donate as she desired (as payback for his "cheating", well it's more complicated than that, but I digress). Since his wife died earlier than Mr Buffett and he didn't seem to trust his long term "girlfriend/housekeeper" with that role, he decided just do matching donations w/ the BMG Foundation with all that money he was saving for his wife. On the other hand, The BMG Foundation's investment philosophy (for the money they haven't spent yet as opposed to the money they are putting to use) is to maximize return which often put it at odds with the same people they are trying to help (high pollution companies, or big-pharma companies). A common gripe about the BMGF is that they seem to only pick-up high-profile healthcare issues which sometimes divert attention to basic healthcare which is also needed by the same population groups. Also, as I understand it, the BMG Foundation also isn't structured to last forever either. All money must be spent before the 50th anniversary of Bill and Melinda's death, so they basically have to spend it all pretty quickly and after the causes they are funding dry up, well, that's all they wrote...
Not saying that Mr Gates and/or Mr Buffett are moral or not, but I don't think these examples show that billionaires either as a group or as individuals become particularly more moral because of their inflated monetary status. In fact, these particular examples seem to show that for some, money is just a NOP. On the other hand, one might argue that they appear less moral that the person that spends 50% of their time helping a neighbor, or stops investing their money with companies that pollute the environment and perhaps a bit narcissistic for wanting specific credit for their donation of resources.
for a long time i thought the rich were a result of poor morals.
Is it really cause or effect?
Look at the mormons and their reputation for honest that propelled thier businesses in the previous century.
Likewise,
As an englishman in south america this (previously especially) brought alot of trust.
I have changed classes from having no money to having comparitively much more. I've felt a change from lowest class with no power to feeling much more powerful and influential. The power corrupts. It's the power that corrupts for sure.
But what about money?
There's a thing in black magic that says symbols can impart a psychological effect... Doesn't really fit my worldview... But it's an idea that's come up many times independently through cultures through history.
On a mundane way don't you find talking about money attracts bad luck in relationships? Like it kills the love in the same way as talking politics. Perhaps that's the reasoning on the misogeny on division of roles to single bread winner for each family... one person handling the money. What if it's true? what if money really carries a psycic imprint in it as it is transferred and even thought about?
Ok, i get bored easily but i can see how it might seem this way
A blog I run for the wealth
or Compassion.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
(Matthew 19:24)
"But the root of all these evils is the love of money, and there are some who have desired it and have erred from the faith and have brought themselves many miniseries."
(Timothy 6:10)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
He loved what he did. So did I. We both met our own personal definition of success. I like to believe that I am happier but as I don't keep in touch with him at all I have no idea where he is ATM.
How do you think they got rich?
Are you referring to his work trying to convince the wealthiest people on the planet to help those less fortunate than themselves by giving away 50% of their wealth within their lifetimes?
Or maybe his proposal that super wealthy bankers and hedgefund managers get taxed at the same rate as plumbers and secretaries?
You sound like my Dad. He is one of the nicest, most honest people I have ever known. He was self employed from his early 30's up until a few years ago and through multiple recessions, he always managed to stay afloat. Over the years I repeatedly told him that he didn't charge enough money for his services (his competitors charged anywhere from 2 to 5 times more than he did for inferior service), but he would never listen as he considered it wrong to charge any more than he did.
He is now living with his brother and pretty much broke. He works a shitty job and is supplemented by social security and shitty VA benefits. Eventually his age caught up with him and because he was so "ethical" is his business dealings he was never able to amass any meaningful amount wealth to cushion him when he got older.
Not saying you are quite in that same boat, or a gullible and hopelessly idealistic as my Dad, but beware of being the "nice guy" in the business world. Nice guys inevitably get squashed in the business world.
Case in point? Look at Bill & Melinda Gates, and the Gates Foundation. Arguably doing great charity work around the world.
Compare there work against the next 100 richest people in the US, or next 500 richest people in the world.
Then look at the Saudi oil barrons, who are among some of richest in the world, and shell out $36Billion to their citizens to, keep them 'happy', lest they get wise and join along in the 'arab uprising' that was going on in 2011.
Morality, for all it's usefullness, is going to be subjective in these contexts. Only real metric you need to ask is, was the group recieving aid better off than they were yesterday? If the answers yes, keep up the good work. If not, try harder.
To be blunt, morality is luxury for those who aren't surviving for their lives on a daily basis.
I was just saying the other day that I'd had three people driving a prius do ridiculously stupid and aggressive things to me in the past week. Now theres a study that proves its true!
willing to do what it takes to succeed, even if doing those things hurts others
That often depends on your viewpoint. When one has more responsibility, their decisions often carry more ramifications. For example, laying off a group of workers hurts them, but if preserves the company and maintains jobs of those remaining, was the decision correct even though some were hurt?
There are many business decisions where none of the options is considered desirable. And just because someone has to make those difficult decisions doesn't mean they enjoy doing it.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I love your well founded, scientifically sound rebuttal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Uh, maybe when a $100 speeding ticket means you lose half your food budget for the week you work really hard to avoid getting them, vs someone who can spend $100 and not feel it....
Just a thought.
Ken
Your major competitor... he wouldn't happen to own a few expensive yachts would he? Friends with an apple seller?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
"In one test, subjects were asked to compare themselves with people at the top or the bottom of the social scale (Donald Trump or a homeless person, for example.)"
Americans: mistaking money for class since the 18th century.
Since when did they become a social subgroup? What's next? Left-handed people with a lisp?
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Did you try RingTFA?
The bits that involved traffic did not involve 'silly law' situations such as you describe: they looked at actual asshole-ish behaviour (actually cutting off other people at a four-way stop, and failing to stop at a marked pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian is clearly waiting to cross). Other tests included lying in a self-reported competition and taking candies which the participants were told were meant for kids in a neighbouring study. All of these sound like decent experiments to me, and nothing like what you seem to have assumed was the case.
... have been run by the rich for ... well ... ever since there were corporations. Now I know why the big corporations tend to be the most dishonest (compared to small businesses). Now I know that moving my money from a big bank to a small bank was a good move.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I find it more likely that the person driving like a jerk and breaking the law to have a "jesus fish" on their SUV or Minivan. I see that far more often than the BMW 7 series, Mercedes, or a Porsche (except the Cayanne, those bitches all drive like assholes) driving like a jerk risking other people lives by tailgaiting and overly agressive driving.
Honestly, as a christian I am embarassed how these hypocrytes that advertise they are christian make the world think my kind act. We dont. The "christian" that acts like that and spews hate at Homosexuals and other people that are "immoral" are NOT christians, they are a wierd sect of extremists that seems to have taken hold.
It's so bad, I have stopped identifying myself as a christian for fear of being identified as one of these scumbags.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Or, as it was put somewhat more elegantly a couple hundred years ago...http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=58976: "They must work for those goals before the majestic equality of the laws, which forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread."
No, rich people are not by nature less moral, they are more inclined to "bend" the (certain) law(s) (they are more likely to get away with it) but they are as aware of the morality/immorality of their actions as anybody else.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
if fine for traffic violations and petty crimes were proportional to income or net worth like they are in some Scandinavian countries. I doubt Steve Jobs would have been parking in handicapped spaces if the fine had been $25M. For $250, its not worth the trouble for a cop to write the ticket and get fired over. For $25M, the crime involved in firing the officer becomes more severe, and the local politicians might not mind seeing that kind of extra cash rolling in.
Support SETI@home
No shit Prius literally drove over into my bike lane trying to run me over on my roadbike! WTF...it's been 12 years since I had a redneck play that game with a pickup truck.
Considering that garbage like the Prius is actually much more damaging to the environment (just look at what it takes to make the batteries) compared to a regular modern gas powered car, and everyone who has one is only doing it for "status", there's nothing new being presented by this article.
How do you think they got rich in the first place ?
da da da dum indeed.
I'm rather certain that's the way nature works, the big lion didn't get that way by excusing himself from eating a hundred zebras to eat nuts and berries instead.
This line of reasoning is a cop-out. The lion *dies* if it tries to live on nuts and berries.
We're human, we're capable of reason. Some of us are lucky enough to live in highly civilized areas of the world. "Law of the jungle" definitely does *not* apply, and we shouldn't allow anyone to drag us down to that level with pithy justifications like this.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
In my experience the people who want money enough to be "morally corrupt" also put in a lot of hours to the exclusion of their families. To them money becomes the driving force. I've seen guys break up with girlfriends, walk away from a wedding and get divorced because they loved money and work more than people. That to me is "morally corrupt".
Anyway, I don't begrudge him his money; he's earned it and I hope he's happy with the life he's picked. I am with mine.
like a wealthy person trying to justify his avarice to everyone else. that's why it doesn't really make much sense.
if you are rich then you don't care about getting tickets (up until you lose your license) and you can afford good lawyers to get you out of other runnins with the law which essentially makes them above the law. Funny, people with power tend to abuse it and people without power tend not to abuse it. Who would have imagined! Also...this article intermingles being moral with being lawful which are not the same thing.
The first of those is misunderstood, the 'eye of the needle' was a term that described that back door to a walled city - the door that would be used after dark when the main gate was closed.
Another version of this myth still being perpetuated upon the innocent by Sunday school teachers and holy land tour guides. It used to be said (as early as the C15th) that there was a gate in Jerusalem that was called the eye of the needle. Unfortunately the historical and archaeological record reveals no such gate (if memory serves me correctly there were 5 gates in Jerusalem in Jesus' time).
What you are actually dealing here is either a simple translation error or perhaps a pun and a pun which surprisingly works both in Aramaic (and Hebrew) as well as Greek. GML is both the name for the Hebrew letter (equivalent of G), for a camel and for rope. In Koine Greek the word for 'camel' is kamelos while the word for ship's rope is kamilos. Considering that vowel shift was occurring between iota and eta, the ambiguity was greater in speech.. See also here.
In Aramaic GML is pointed the same way for both as gamla, so when Jesus spoke he literally said "it is easier to thread a ship's rope through the eye of a needle" and "it is easier to force a camel through the eye of a needle," at the same time.
Moreover if we take this statement together with Luke 6:25; Matt 6:24 (also Luke 16:13); etc. there can be no doubting the import of Jesus' words: If you are rich, if you pursue wealth even, you are fucked for all eternity. ... unless you're like Warren Buffet or something and leave the sweets for the little kids ...
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Prius drivers also behaved badly
Wouldn't that be obvious?
Regular people can't afford a Prius
What you see on TV has no basis in reality.
Do you honestly think most pizza delivery guys would engage in wanton cruelty to animals?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
(La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.)
Anatole France
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Self describe your "income, education, and job respect," compared to other Americans, see how much candy they eat. Ask people if they think being greedy is beneficial and see whether they sympathize with petty theft, and then evaluate how an expensive car-driver follows the law compared to an inexpensive car driver does. Congrats, you've established that people who spend a lot of effort and money trying to *appear* high status are willing to walk over people who don't.
Compare with the research on actual self-made millionaires (Millionare Mind) and realize that the truly wealthy rarely drive new cars, tend to take relatively humble jobs and turn them into businesses, have moderate rather than superior levels of education (not counting the Doctors and Lawyer, but they tend to under-perform based on income), and are, almost universally, obsessed with integrity, doing excellent work, and living frugally.
You've proved that over-privileged, status-obsessed jerks tend to act like over-privileged, status-obsessed jerks. Maybe for your next study on rich people, you should try studying people who have actually made and kept real money.
The rich don't cook meth, but they will lay-off a single father of 4 young children in order to get a bigger bonus for themselves.
The poor don't design new ways to cheat the government on a multi-million dollar defense program, but they will skip out on their drug possession bail bond.
I'll buy that. But not with a 30 year mortgage.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Power does what it wants. A gem from the great George Carlin.
Could it be that less moral people end up rich as a result of being morally-challenged? That is, it's not that being rich make you more likely to be immoral, but rather than being immoral makes you more likely to be rich?
The Aristocrats!!!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I read something to that effect in an insightful post here years ago. The problem with the world is you can get rich by lying, cheating, obfuscating the legal process, FUD, and a host of other tactics that might not land you in jail, but that we mostly agree is immoral (even those engaging in those acts). But, we live in a world where youdon't get the promotion when Bob from marketing is willing to lie to clients to up his sales numbers, the girl who sold me my new cable service lied about the actual cost and when a deal-breaker upgrade was due, hell even BSing women at bars pays off more than "being yourself."
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
The rich are more likely to cheat,
Those sons of bitches.
steal,
Really, quite uncivil of them.
and even disobey traffic laws
Well NOW they've gone too far dammit!
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
But pirates commit far more crimes than the RIAA and other artist protectors.
People care more about people who they can feel some level of connection to. We can sympathise more with people we resemble (in habits, ethnicity, or ...). Poor people may be more likely to give to poor people because they've been there and they know what it's like to be without. I know many poor people will not feel adverse to stealing from the rich fat cats, just as the rich don't give a fuck about street scum. But the situation is asymmetric because poor are obviously more in need of charity than the rich.
Cuz we all know that all these gangs with violent crimes are just float'in in cash, right?
One man's pink plane is another man's blue plane.
I have worked in multiple positions mostly as helpers to the rich and the elite e.g. assistant in family offices, manager in michelin-starred restaurants etc. I have noticed the rich and the elite tend to believe law and regulations do not relate to them - that these rules are simply used to regulate the masses. In other words, they do not think they behave dishonourably or dishonestly - they simply believe they are different and that they are entitled to these privileges. Sure not every single one of them think like that, but I noticed majority of them do. Just my two cents.
I believe Nietzsche referred to this as "Noble Morality," not to be confused with "Slave Morality" parameters like those used in the article.
Would you rather walk around in the poorest town in Mexico with a tourist hat and $5000 in cash in your pocket, or walk around the nicest part of Beverly hills with $5000 in your pocket?
Study: Disproved.
It is not as strange as one might think, and it doesn't necessarily mean that you can't trust those rich bastards.
It is a well know phenomenon that members of a group show great loyalty to each other, but have little regard for those outside; outsiders are "enemies", at least potentially. Rich people simply regard themselves as a group apart from the rest of society and therefore see the rules of society as irrelevant; this is, by the way, the origin of the word "privilege": "private law" - meaning that you have your own private laws apart from the common laws, which are meant for the rabble.
that it has to take research that probably cost thousands, to merely suggest that the rich are less moral and unscrupulous in what they did. The rich are like the ripened fruit - the richer it is, the more rotten it gets. But there's still redemptive hope - if they give away all their wealth (like a rich rotten fruit), new lives may benefit from that.
Are less moral people rich?
The punishment for most of these activities is a fine...
To someone on a low to average wage, a $50 fine can be quite painful... To a millionaire, a $50 fine is nothing.
So someone on a low wage is discouraged from doing the activity, the guy with millions in the bank is not discouraged at all and simply considers it a privilege that he can pay a trivial (to him) amount of money for.
I saw recently a story about a bugatti veyron which was parked in a disabled space and subsequently got a parking ticket, do you really think someone who can afford a car like that is going to care about a parking ticket? To him, he's just paid $50 for the convenience of parking closer, and will probably spend twice that on gas to get to/from the location anyway. The thought that someone genuinely disabled might require the space would have never occurred to him.
Punishments need to be equally painful for everyone, having fixed cost fines just gives the rich the ability to buy their way out of obeying the laws, and make them even more arrogant.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
they are more able than the less rich, and everyone should contibute to the society according to their abilities.
In a room full of fire, the strongest person will curry the weakest one.
In a flood, the strongest person will swim and curry ther weakest one.
When in a forest, the tallest person can reach the fruits and offer them to the shorter ones.
When blind or having vision problems, the one will the best eyesight will lead the group to safety.
You see, in most cases in life, the more able enjoys more but also has to offer more.
In the process of achieving their desires, those with such drive inevitably both benefit and hurt others.
The balance between how many they benefit and how many they hurt is something that society must ultimately decide upon.
Right now, particularly in our financial system, we have determined that there need be no balance at all. People can sate their desires, benefiting no-one but themselves, and hurting thousands and even millions in the process. That is the society we have heretofore chosen for ourselves.
May the Maths Be with you!
The bias present in the article is that it is money that they are looking at, rather than perceived empowerment. Like, I wonder how generals and senators and mid level bureaucrats drive about, or mayors and city managers, or even police.
This is my sig.
They generally get away with anything so why not do what you want?
It's also been observed (somewhere) that people take a lot more risks when riding bicycles if they're wearing a helmet (even if a bike helmet logically doesn't save you from most injuries). Besides a theoretical sense of entitlement, perhaps money is strapped around the heads of the rich, in a similar function?
This is obviously a very scientific study.
Speak for yourself.
This was done in California using students from Berkeley, a small subset of all of North America (considering a Canadian was one of the authors).
Additionally, they asked respondents their "social economic" level, they didn't go to the IRS and verify anything. People tend to lie about their income, its a well known fact, so all you have is a bunch of people who you know are lairs cause of the testing they did word that they are in the income bracket they specified. Something tells me this isn't a "valid" way to build a research report by going on the word of the people you already know are lairs.
Their method for telling if someone is rich or poor in their driver study? By the car they drove, cause apparently people don't take out loans for ridiculous amounts of money even though they should otherwise be unable to ever afford the car in question. No, instead this experiment on the drivers gauged how much someone was willing to spend on a car to show off, and typically, in any age or income bracket, the one who buys something to use as a status symbol is a prick. We already knew that.
In addition, their so called "studies" was done using students who "pretended" to be rich or pretended to be "poor", therefor were playing the role of a rich person they had in their mind. In other words they were playing on their stereotype that they feel rich people would steal, while the poor are "honest" people.
Another one of their great studies used non-managers and were told to pretend to be managers, again your using people to play a role and they are going to be stereotypical of what they perceive managers to be. Which again invalidates their results.
This can barely be called a experiment. It was flawed from the start. This isn't tech related, this isn't science related, and its not even a study that matters if someone was willing to bother reading their testing methods. Wired wrote up a good article on this load of crap.
Money translatese to power which implies privilege, and privilege implies that laws and conventions are somehow not for them, so the best thing for society is to level the playing field and increase the wealth of everyone, or say foster programs that grow the middle class at the expense of the ultra wealthy. Our lives in general will be improved and our country will again be the envy of the world, not the envy of the rich and powerful.
Money = Power
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
What's the quote? "Idle hands are the Devil's work at play". Once the whole making a living thing
is out of the way you're really left with your character. If it was lacking to begin with then the problem
is just exasperated, the contrary is also true. Really, all that's left is your moral compass and what
motivates you as a person. No one is immune from this. The saying that money changes people
is only addressing the symptom, money allows people to express themselves as they truly are.
www.alphalinux.org
It looks like bashing the "rich" is a common trend these days. Some people just have problems with the definition of "rich" :)
No, rich people are not less moral. I saw many poor people who have no moral at all. I see little correlation between the amount of wealth and the moral. It depends on one's background, education, parents, personal issues etc - that defines how moral the person would be. It is just that the rich people are sometimes more visible and it is easier for them to express themselves publicly if they with to do so.
I have no problem if the guy next to me makes 100 times more than I do and I do not think he owes me anything at all. Well, unless he is making the money by stealing the goods from my home ;) In most of the cases the people who make much more money than I do deserve that because they have more guts, skills, energy etc. I believe it is totally wrong to say that the rich people "own" anything to the society - in addition to the normal contributions every person has to do, typically in form of taxes.
However, if someone who is richer than me believes (and proves with his/her behavior) that he or she has more rights, or is free from certain obligations - then it is a different story. But this is why we need the laws that set the rules for everyone, that are strictly enforced for every single person and that are simple enough so they cannot be bended in favor of a particular individual if he is more wealthy.
Rich people aren't less moral because they're rich, They're rich because they're immoral.. the things that they do to make money would give most people pause..
And they know how their friends got rich and it didn't involve obeying the law.
It's not that rich people are naturally disinclined to honor the law; it's that breaking the law is a necessary component to getting rich. Ask the Kennedy family (bootlegging) or J P Morgan or Microsoft or just anyone whose made their fortune on Wall Street lately.
As Leona Helmsley put it- taxes (laws) are for little people.
Why isn't Wall Street in jail? Why does 1% of the population own 50% of the wealth? Because we live in a corrupt plutocracy where the control of first lawmaking, tax policies and regulation, but failing those goals, of law enforcement itself, are the first and second priorities of the rich.
The rich are less likely to obey the law? Only to the extent that they're not already making it.
Just shows that it takes a state of mind that defies authority of others over you to make it and it is consistent with expectations.
You can't handle the truth.
"I repeatedly told him that he didn't charge enough money for his services (his competitors charged anywhere from 2 to 5 times more than he did for inferior service), but he would never listen as he considered it wrong to charge any more than he did."
This is actually a fairly common business error—not the charging lower than competitors, but thinking it's somehow wrong to charge what your services are worth. Unfortunately, our brains are set up to eventually see the lower price not as "bargain" but as somehow less worthy than the higher prices. You can charge high prices if you're providing high services without being a shark or unethical. It's only when you don't intend to give value for the money that you're doing something wrong.
Cheers to your Dad. I hope life grants him a better deal than what he's got now, because it sounds as though he just didn't have the knowledge he needed.
Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
Insider trading is legal to Congress men and illegal to civilians.
http://www.investoruprising.com/author.asp?section_id=1287&doc_id=231809
Casteism
>Prius drivers also behaved badly, regardless of their wealth
I dont know any multi millionaires or billionaires that drive a Prius, you?
When they say they compared righ vs. poor, I guess the guy with 20$ is richer then the guy with 10$, but they are both still poor to me if they are driving a Prius!
You seem to be confusing "God-given ability" with "Daddy was rich therefore I am".
In my case, Daddy was not at all rich nor was he inclined to be. He was perfectly content with living in an old single wide trailer out in the woods, and seemed indignant that I wasn't. He was however an intelligent man who instinctively understood how systems of things worked, and had a very practical curiosity about a great many things.
Mom wasn't rich either. Her dad was a temperamental, fiercely independent Cherokee/Irish man who worked as a welder all his life building cranes. Her mother was an intelligent lady of English descent who loved to read. My mother grew up in the backwoods of Alabama. No wealth there, only riches of spirit.
At the lowest levels all of the Universe is based on mathematics, is it not? Put two and two together and guess what? Here I am with Curiosity, Intelligence, Ambition, and Drive = Entrepreneur.
I beg to differ: my God-given abilities (aka genetic predisposition to certain ways of thinking) most certainly DO make me rich.
Any disbelief in the existence of genetic predisposition towards riches is nothing more than insecurity, or ignorance, crying out for attention.
Belief in god(s) is the mark of a moron.
If every chemical reaction which occurs in the Universe has a cause, which is knowable......does it not follow that there is a grain of truth inside every myth, story, or idea which humankind (the species) has felt (collectively) was important to perpetrate to some degree?
Would it not also follow that, given the extent with which these stories/myths/ideas (i.e. the Bible) have been spread prolifically, copied, and otherwise upheld by mankind for ages.....the grain(s) of truth in question must be significant indeed?
I was an atheist too--starting around elementary school--and ending when I learned enough about the Universe to know that while there may not be (and probably isn't) a Supreme Being in the form imagined by Man, Man isn't stupid, and there IS a reason behind all this religious "nonsense."
Take the Bible, remove all the supernatural stuff, 2000+ years of misinterpretation and word-of-mouth/hand-copied-scrolls evolution/mistranslation, and most importantly....substitute "Society" (or "Society + Nature") wherever God is mentioned. Now re-read the whole thing, assuming everything is a metaphor or allegory to the human condition. It makes perfect sense. The book contains a ton of truth.
I observed just yesterday, at an event, how Americans (ie, rich people, by most if the worlds standards) won't steal laptops, cameras, phones, etc., laying out in plain view, unguarded. I would never leave something sitting on a table at a public event like that, for even a minute, in Nairobi. But there were tens of thousands of dollars worth of electronics sitting out between events at this particular gathering as people wandered around looking at the other tables.
So perhaps the rich are just immoral about different things.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner