# Interesting article: negative correlation between empathy & wealth?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/#.TkKU5oJvyuI

What do you think? It's an interesting thought and not entirely contrary to common sense, though it is a tendency and not an absolute truth.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Maybe it's a tendency; I'm sure Professor Keltner is much smarter than I am. But the rich - well, the well-off - that I know are generous. One person I know at this moment is paying the food bills for a lady with no income as her husband lies for his second week in a hospital, and he's doing it anonymously. In fact, he does a lot of things anonymously. Another helps people get assistance for elder care. And I'm sure being people of faith affects their generosity. 

On the other hand, as a trustee for my church, I also have discovered poor people who think a church/charity is their personal bank account.

I suppose we can demonize people we haven't met, but there's good and bad on both sides.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

One only needs to look at the rioters in London to realize that many poor people have no empathy either.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

...So? Doesn't mean that it's suddenly a bad idea to be rich.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Amfibius said:


> One only needs to look at the rioters in London to realize that many poor people have no empathy either.


Of course, it's not black & white. People are animals when push comes to shove. Although when it comes to having low emotional intelligence, entitlement certainly helps.

With that said I'm generally suspicious of anyone's concept of empathy. It somehow always seems convenient for them.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44084236/ns/health-behavior/#.TkKU5oJvyuI
> 
> What do you think? It's an interesting thought and not entirely contrary to common sense, though it is a tendency and not an absolute truth.


Well I don't know, I don't fully endorse this demonizing of the rich. The whole article seems rather biased. Maybe this researcher was out to make a point, and without a full look at the methodology, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Philanthropy in America is rather strong. For one thing, anecdotal as it is and for what it's worth, I'm rather well-off (not enormously, but as compared to the American average, I am in the upper percentiles) and I'm quite generous, and routinely donate professional time to worthy causes and make contributions to charity. I also think that I'm rather empathetic. Maybe what I'm saying will be dismissed as self-serving or self-propaganda, but I swear it's the truth. For one thing, I got recognized by UNICEF as one of their "embassadors" - not a real title, of course, but a way they have to recognize their decades-long, steady benefactors. I got a framed metal plate from them and all.

I don't deny that there are many rich people who are selfish and greedy, but there are also those who donate billions to charitable foundations (e.g. Bill Gates).

Oh and by the way I dispute the notion that being a man of faith is what does it, like someone else said above. I'm an atheist and I don't think I'm any less generous than the average man of faith. This idea that religious people are somehow better or more moral than atheists in my humble opinion is very questionable, because good and bad people exist in both camps.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Going further, I'd say a person who needs fear of eternal punishment (or promises of paradise) to act decent is morally lower than a person who acts decent of his/her own accord.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Amfibius said:


> One only needs to look at the rioters in London to realize that many poor people have no empathy either.


Fair point.

The culture of dependence amongst the lower social economic groups, at least in this country, I think is on the rise, whether or not that might be the fault of "entitlement nurturing" from past and current governments.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Going further, I'd say a person who needs fear of eternal punishment (or promises of paradise) to act decent is morally lower than a person who acts decent of his/her own accord.


 Well, in defense of religious people, many of them don't act decently or morally just because of fear of eternal punishment or promises of paradise, but rather out of a sense of spirituality, love, and contact with the divine (whatever it means to them). I wouldn't make any generalization. Like I said I think there are good people and bad people across all religious denominations as well as among atheists/agnostics, and people who are one or another for either good or bad reasons.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> Well, in defense of religious people, many of them don't act decently or morally just because of fear of eternal punishment or promises of paradise, but rather out of a sense of spirituality, love, and contact with the divine (whatever it means to them). I wouldn't make any generalization. Like I said I think there are good people and bad people across all religious denominations as well as among atheists/agnostics, and people who are one or another for either good or bad reasons.


Lots of smoke in there, Alma. You might as well have no comment.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Lots of smoke in there, Alma. You might as well have no comment.


 I'm for balanced approaches, Hilltroll. For things being relative, and against generalizations.
I mean, would you deny that while some religious people may act within morality for fear of sin/damnation, etc, others may act due to genuine love, and others still may be very hypocritical and pay lip service to morality while being quite depraved?

I'd say that I'm against the concept of religion as a whole (I do consider it to be a groundless creation of the human mind) but I wouldn't go as far as denying that it is important for many religious persons and can be a positive force for them as individuals (although I'd say that organized religion is often a more detrimental force than not).

Regardless of how I feel about religion, I do recognize that there are good religious people out there and that many of them do engage in some good deeds thanks to their spirituality and not necessarily just out of fear of punishment. Where exactly is the smoke in this statement?


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

I think there is a reason why those kind of questions are always raised in USA.

Isn't it Denmark a country that has both very high level of social entitlements, and also very low tolerance for avoiding work? From what I've heard, they will give you about 90% of your income while you are jobless, but they won't allow you to be jobless for long - even if they appoint you the job far below your education/expertise level. "You will not notice financially that you've lost a job, but you better find one until we find one for you" - I guess that's fair. But it is a country that pays 40-60% of income taxes, and then very well takes care where it goes to.

So it all comes down to how much are we ready to pay attention and take participation and responsibility in our society (from community to state level), or are we just letting the politicians do their job. If we would do that (the responsibility thing), we couldn't care less who is generous or not - we would all pay huge taxes (richest pay most), and take care what it's spent for. But in US generosity of the rich is so important because social issues are worst in the developed world (universal health care a few years old, compared to few decades in other countries, and even XIX century in Germany). Probably because "in America, the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."(misattributed to John Steinbeck) So don't tax the rich - it just might be me among those millionaires as soon as tomorrow... yea right.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Can I just check: when we're talking about _empathy_ in this thread, are we actually meaning to talk about _sympathy_? The two words are often confused, but they mean distinctly different things. I think it goes without saying that, unless they're a rags-to-riches story, a rich person is going to lack a certain empathetic ability, but it's actually their sympathy that matters.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> i
> 
> Oh and by the way I dispute the notion that being a man of faith is what does it, like someone else said above. I'm an atheist and I don't think I'm any less generous than the average man of faith. This idea that religious people are somehow better or more moral than atheists in my humble opinion is very questionable, because good and bad people exist in both camps.


The purpose of my observation wasn't to say that a well-to-do man of faith is superior to an atheist or acts out of fear of hell; the reason I mentioned that is, the professor indicated that his findings indicated that rich people tend to be more self-absorbed and stingy. My observation of the well-to-do I know is different; the ones I know are generous, so I wonder how his conclusions are different from mine.

One possibility is because the well-off that I know are in an environment where selflessness is taught and encouraged and they are constantly in contact with all levels of society and needs in the church environment.

This also would apply to persons who do not ascribe to a system of faith. If they are involved in organizations or activities which encourage altriusm, the environment would encourage generosity.

I don't know if the professor considered the effects these types of environments in his findings.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Almaviva said:


> [...]
> I'd say that I'm against the concept of religion as a whole (I do consider it to be a groundless creation of the human mind) but I wouldn't go as far as denying that it is important for many religious persons and can be a positive force for them as individuals (although I'd say that organized religion is often a more detrimental force than not).
> [the 'statement follows]
> Regardless of how I feel about religion, I do recognize that there are good religious people out there and that many of them do engage in some good deeds thanks to their spirituality and not necessarily just out of fear of punishment. Where exactly is the smoke in this statement?


It's _smoke_ because the 'qualification' you employ - religious persons - immediately becomes a mere space-taker. You can substitute _atheists_ for _religious persons_ without changing the sense - or the truth - of your statement. You can leave out both qualifications, and just say 'human beings'. The statement will lose no validity. So... it's _smoke._


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

This article has some bearing on the subject:

*http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-empathy-is-the-root-of-all-evil-2262371.html*

It's possible to have zero empathy and be "negative," e.g. a psychopathic killer, or "positive," e.g. a physicist or mathematician with Asberger's syndrome who can't relate to people at all, but still makes a positive contribution to society.

Extending it to wealth, a kleptocrat dictator like Gaddafi would be a "negative," but a ruthless businessman like Bill Gates who makes a product or provides a service that benefits a great many people would be a "positive."

(I don't mean that Bill Gates has zero empathy--the fact that he gives large sums of money to charity would suggest otherwise. But even if he had no empathy, he would still be a "positive").


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> The culture of dependence amongst the lower social economic groups, at least in this country, I think is on the rise, whether or not that might be the fault of "entitlement nurturing" from past and current governments.


One's opinion about that obviously often depends on what social economic group one belongs to himself. But be that as it may, it would be a mistake to regard for example those London characters as the 'rebels' they proclaim themselves to be. A 'real' rebel aims his anger at those he holds responsible for the situation he's in, but what we have here are a bunch of psychos who enjoy violent behaviour aimed at no matter who or what.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> It's _smoke_ because the 'qualification' you employ - religious persons - immediately becomes a mere space-taker. You can substitute _atheists_ for _religious persons_ without changing the sense - or the truth - of your statement. You can leave out both qualifications, and just say 'human beings'. The statement will lose no validity. So... it's _smoke._


OK, then. In this case, I like my smoke.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Going further, I'd say a person who needs fear of eternal punishment (or promises of paradise) to act decent is morally lower than a person who acts decent of his/her own accord.


Then I would go one step further and say that someone who thinks they should force others to give more of their money to support the poor through government coercion is a few steps even lower on the morality scale.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

I think empathy CAN drive people to be more giving, but I don't think it is necessary. I think there are multipile motives that can drive a person to give. 

I think pride can do it - people who want to see their names on buildings and such. Is it the right motive? Probably not, but at the same time, someone else still benefits. Do they care that the money for that new cancer center came with the string attached that it had to be named for the benefactor?

I think peer pressure can do it - think of these big fundraisers that get multiple rich people together to donate to some cause. They go, because everybody else they know is going, and they donate because they don't want to be the only one not writing a check.

Some people do it for unknown motives that are nevertheless completely selfless. I heard a story last Christmas time about a smaller town - I believe it was in Missouri, but I could be wrong - where for the last several years, someone has been anonymously dropping in huge donations into Salvation Army collection cans - I can't remember exactly, but I want to say they are at least in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The individual seems to be giving even more as the economic situation gets worse. His donations are listed as being from Santa Claus. Nobody knows who it is. Each year he leaves them in different collection cans. The news media is obsessed with identifying the anonymous donor, but honestly, this is someone who wants to do good and not get any kind of congratulations for it - let him have his anonymity.

What I know from my own experience, which has been influenced by my religious beliefs, is that giving is contagious. Not only that, it creates a positive feedback loop. The more you give, the better you feel, thus inspiring you to give more. My kids love going out and picking out toys for disadvantaged kids at Christmas. You would think they would want the toys for themselves, but no - my eldest, 5 years old, seems to pick out more toys, and better ones, for donation than he wants for himself. We also buy pre-packaged school supplies at the beginning of the school year, and each year, my wife talks herself into buying more than we did the previous year. I think a lot of rich people who give a lot probably honestly and truly enjoy it - you can't help but enjoying it, because it feels good to directly do something that helps another human being. No matter what opinions you have about poor people and how they got into their situation in general, you still feel good about giving. Do I think that there are blessings in the world to come for that giving? Absolutely. And maybe at sometimes I have given more out of a feeling of obligation - but whatever the motivation, how can any voluntary act that helps an individual in need be bad, or somehow on some different plane of morality? That's just rubbish.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> ... but what we have here are a bunch of psychos who enjoy violent behaviour aimed at no matter who or what.


And you forgot to mention "violent behaviour _and stealing_", and given the opportunity, they would also steal from UK tax payers too (welfare).

Edit: and if you think stealing of tax payers' monies in many developed countries are not on the rise, then you might as well be living in Antartica.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> And you forgot to mention "violent behaviour _and stealing_", and given the opportunity, they would also steal from UK tax payers too (welfare).
> 
> Edit: and if you think stealing of tax payers' monies in many developed countries are not on the rise, then you might as well be living in Antartica.


Actually, they have an ATM in Antarctica, so I think that theft there is also possible. Of course, if you are caught, they might just kick you out into the cold.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> No matter what opinions you have about poor people and how they got into their situation in general,


Sorry to pick on this fragment of an otherwise very good post, but out of curiosity, what is your opinion on poor people?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Sorry to pick on this fragment of an otherwise very good post, but out of curiosity, what is your opinion on poor people?


Hmm - I have a feeling that any detailed answer here might detract from what I have tried to represent in my earlier post. Let's just say, I have nothing but sympathy for those who have, through misfortune, found themselves in tough circumstances. And my feelings are somewhat less warm-hearted for those who put forward no effort, but rather sit back with their hands out and expect to be cared for.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Hmm - I have a feeling that any detailed answer here might detract from what I have tried to represent in my earlier post. Let's just say, I have nothing but sympathy for those who have, through misfortune, found themselves in tough circumstances. And my feelings are somewhat less warm-hearted for those who put forward no effort, but rather sit back with their hands out and expect to be cared for.


 Most of the ones I know fit the former case. I was just curious to know if you are a subscriber of the notion "poor people are poor because they are lazy."


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Most of the ones I know fit the former case. I was just curious to know if you are a subscriber of the notion "poor people are poor because they are lazy."


Not exclusively, but I'm sure that you don't believe that description is purely fictional. I happen to have an uncle, and my wife has an aunt, that both fit that description. Not to go too much into detail, but my uncle talked relatives into lending him money that he then sent to one of those "Nigerian" princes so that he could access his millions in African bank accounts. When he didn't get his millions, he then borrowed more money to fly to South Africa to find said "prince," ended up getting beat within an inch of his life, had to get help from a local branch of his church there in South Africa to get back home, and thinks that he really did nothing wrong. All because Motorola fired him back in the '80's, and has never felt that he should have to take any job that wouldn't hire him at at least the same level as when he was fired - so he hasn't worked since.


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Not exclusively, but I'm sure that you don't believe that description is purely fictional. I happen to have an uncle, and my wife has an aunt, that both fit that description. Not to go too much into detail, but my uncle talked relatives into lending him money that he then sent to one of those "Nigerian" princes so that he could access his millions in African bank accounts. When he didn't get his millions, he then borrowed more money to fly to South Africa to find said "prince," ended up getting beat within an inch of his life, had to get help from a local branch of his church there in South Africa to get back home, and thinks that he really did nothing wrong. All because Motorola fired him back in the '80's, and has never felt that he should have to take any job that wouldn't hire him at at least the same level as when he was fired - so he hasn't worked since.


 Sorry, but your uncle sounds like a moron, and hardly representative of the poor in this country.
Oh well, I think I'm guilty of veering this thread off-topic.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

Almaviva said:


> Sorry, but your uncle sounds like a moron, and hardly representative of the poor in this country.
> Oh well, I think I'm guilty of veering this thread off-topic.


Now, now, Alma. I've spent the whole day stepping out of my normal persona and even surprising Aramis at the jokes I was cracking (racking up quite a few likes in the process). Let's not goad me into getting all serious. Take a load off - go read my send-up of the rioter with the bag of basmati rice. Or are you just trying to get back at me for my Anna comments!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

DrMike said:


> ...Motorola fired him back in the '80's, and has never felt that he should have to take any job that wouldn't hire him at at least the same level as when he was fired - so he hasn't worked since.


Sigh. And he has been on welfare ever since?  That's where government policy design has failed if handouts come too easily - "the entitlement nurturing". The long term unemployed of such types. We have them here, too. Or even worse, here in Australia those who have given up looking for work are no longer defined as unemployed as far as national statistics are concerend, they become part of the hidden unemployed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Quite a lot of the usual "us vs. them" "ideology" re some opinions on this thread. I won't say much more except that these two quotes from the article correlate with what I have read elsewhere -



> According to Gallup, Americans earning more than $90,000 per year continued to increase their consumer spending in July while middle- and lower-income Americans remained stalled, even as the upper classes argue that they can't pay any more taxes.


Which shows that those on higher incomes have not been affected much by the recent/current global financial problems. They are "buffered" by their wealth. Easy to blame those on "struggle street" - eg. middle to low income earners - for whatever you want. When the middle & low income earners are "hurting" that's a danger sign, isn't it? A bit like the frogs dying out, or endangered species, as a sign of wider environmental problems. (I'm thinking "laterally" here).



> ...Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us continues to grow wider, with over 80 percent of the nation's financial wealth controlled by about 20 percent of the people.


This has been going on for ages, way before "globalisation." Eg. in the pre-1945 era most of Australian businesses (esp. the large ones) were in the hands of UK companies/conglomerates. Now we are "owned" by the USA & also China & Japan (I'd hazard a strong guess?). So where does that lead "us?" Not only is the "gap" between rich & poor widening, but so is the disparity between "locals" owning the wealth "here" & those who have nothing or little to do with "our" interests in New York, Beijing or Tokyo. Who controls us really? Probably the pollies in Canberra in some ways (eg. political) but in other ways (economic/financial), it's the faceless multinational bosses in other distant lands...


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Sigh. *And he has been on welfare ever since?*  That's where government policy design has failed if handouts come too easily - "the entitlement nurturing". The long term unemployed of such types. We have them here, too. Or even worse, here in Australia those who have given up looking for work are no longer defined as unemployed as far as national statistics are concerend, they become part of the hidden unemployed.


Not entirely. He has managed to procure money from various family members. He's that uncle nobody wants to associate with at family reunions, because all he wants to do is hit you up for money to join in on some incredible investment that he has discovered that is sure to lead to instant wealth - not typically down-on-their-luck "Nigerian princes," usually some pyramid scheme.


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Quite a lot of the usual "us vs. them" "ideology" re some opinions on this thread. I won't say much more except that these two quotes from the article correlate with what I have read elsewhere -
> 
> Which shows that those on higher incomes have not been affected much by the recent/current global financial problems. They are "buffered" by their wealth. Easy to blame those on "struggle street" - eg. middle to low income earners - for whatever you want. When the middle & low income earners are "hurting" that's a danger sign, isn't it? A bit like the frogs dying out, or endangered species, as a sign of wider environmental problems. (I'm thinking "laterally" here).
> 
> This has been going on for ages, way before "globalisation." Eg. in the pre-1945 era most of Australian businesses (esp. the large ones) were in the hands of UK companies/conglomerates. Now we are "owned" by the USA & also China & Japan (I'd hazard a strong guess?). So where does that lead "us?" Not only is the "gap" between rich & poor widening, but so is the disparity between "locals" owning the wealth "here" & those who have nothing or little to do with "our" interests in New York, Beijing or Tokyo. Who controls us really? Probably the pollies in Canberra in some ways (eg. political) but in other ways (economic/financial), it's the faceless multinational bosses in other distant lands...


I am leery of these comments about "rich getting richer" in the context of these discussions. Of course they do - that is how you grow economies. Were the richest people in this country to be at the same income levels of, say, 1850, does anybody really believe the U.S. would be much of an economic superpower? The myth of some utopian "middle class" society is pure madness. The middle class does not have the wealth to generate the tax revenues necessary to run a country as large as most European nations and the U.S. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. pay more than 50% of the total federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay almost nothing. So if the rich weren't getting richer, who would be paying the bill?

The point is that it isn't a zero sum game. Just because the rich are getting richer doesn't mean the rest can't also improve their situation. What does it matter what the income gap is? That is purely a class warfare statement, and one born of envy. I make a good living - I am not rich by any means, but I meet all my obligations and still have additional money for some fun. The fact that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet make an exorbitant amount more has no impact on that. In first-world countries, if you acquire the necessary skills and training, then chances are the job that you acquire will pay fairly well. And without the wealth being created at the top, that wouldn't be possible. You have to have somebody who has the money to be able to hire people. Although I make a good living, and am firmly in the "middle class," were job creation dependent on me, we would have an unemployment rate of near 90%. I can't afford to hire anybody, or provide anybody with a job. Neither would the government, because the money they receive from me in taxes - were that to be suddenly the top tax bracket - would barely keep anything going - certainly not the vast network of government jobs.

Of course wealthier people haven't been hit as hard by the economic downturn. To be honest - I haven't been hit hard by the economic downturn.

As I said before, I recognize that there are a variety of ways that individuals find themselves in the poor house. And despite that, my family and I still give. We don't ask who specifically our donations go to - the person that is struggling to get a job but just can't find one, or the one who prefers to leech off of others.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

> That is purely a class warfare statement, and one born of envy. I make a good living


Really, I couldn't have guessed


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Really, I couldn't have guessed


Probably not as good as you might think. I rent. I have 2 children. I have never bought a new car - always used. Both my wife and I work. I have to pay for preschool for one of my children. I don't own any fur coats. I am a scientist, just fresh off of a postdoc - not a medical doctor - so the pay is considerably less.

I say I make a good living because I do. I'm not rich. We have to scrape together the money to fly the entire family to go visit my mother on the other side of the country once a year. But I can afford some creature comforts - including the occasional classical music purchase. I am not rich, by any stretch of the imagination - definitely well below the $250,000 mark Obama set.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DrMike said:


> I am leery of these comments about "rich getting richer" in the context of these discussions. Of course they do - that is how you grow economies.


When economies grow, the rich do get richer. In general (but not always) so does everyone. The question is whether the rich grow economies. There appears to be an argument that it's actually the income gains of everyone else that really matters. Obviously investment from the rich is a critical component, but spending by the others may be more important.

This link shows a fascinating graph (2nd from top) of the top 1% share of total pre-tax income in the US from 1913 - 2008. There are 2 interesting features. First, the two peaks occurred in 1928 (just before the depression) and in 2007 (just before the great recession). Both peaks have a value of roughly 24%, but I don't know if that value or that both peaks have the same value is significant. Second, during roughly 1953 - 1975, the top 1% had the lowest income share in the entire period.

This link has a table showing GDP growth per Capita in the United States as a function of time. By far the highest annual growth rate occurred between 1950 - 1973 (the period of lowest income share for the top 1%).

The argument seems to be that most of the rich's money goes to investment rather than spending. Everyone else spends vastly more of their income and invests relatively little. The economy grows well when companies make things that people buy. If you give $1,000,000 to the rich, they might spend 25% or so ($250,000), but if you give that same amount to others, they will spend close to the entire $1,000,000. When income share for the rich gets too high, they can't invest all the money so they speculate instead. As income share for the rich increases, the only way to keep the economy growing is for the others to borrow (and spend what they borrow). This situation eventually leads to a slowing economy and excess speculation or bubbles that cause crashes.

Based on this argument, income share for everyone but the rich should increase significantly to allow the economy to grow (and let the rich invest in products rather than speculation). During the period 1950 - 1973 income growth for the rich was actually less than for every other group. The reverse was true for other time periods (of smaller economic growth).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

*@ Dr Mike *- thanks for your comments, you make good points & relate it to your life, that's all we can do, talk from experience.

But I think I'm just wary of the "trickle down effect" that you seem to be talking to, eg. the disparity between very rich & middle/low income earners kind of powering the economy. It's not a problem of the rich being rich, it's a problem with the *widening "gap." *Eg. here in Australia in about the mid c20th. (eg. post-1945) an average worker could pay off a mortgage in less than 5 years (I've even heard some people say it was about 2-3 years). Now you'd be lucky to pay that in say 20 years or more (& some people will never "break in" to the property market, to going towards owning their own home). Who is benefiting from this "sexing up" of property prices? It's certainly not the middle/low income earners. This is just one example. I think it was more equitable in the post-war period, less divided along class/income lines. That's maybe why there was more optimism & cohesion in society (well, generally speaking, there were problems then as now, of course, I'm not trying to simplify/reduce these things). But now it's increasingly a case of the few "haves" versus the more "have nots" (or those who have much less).

As I said, this does not bode well for a cohesive, unified society or polity. To take an extreme example, Marie Antoinette said to those starving in France before the Revolution (1789) - "Let them eat cake." In the original French, a more accurate translation would be "Let them eat bread." But in any case, these people were not amused, and as we know, she got her head chopped off for it. I'm no supporter of that kind of "mob mentality" violence, but let's face it, looking at history this kind of have/have not division breeds problems of all kinds. I'm not going to relate it to what's going on now eg. in London, that would be silly as I know little about that situation. But I'm making a general point that when people at the middle/bottom are being squeezed to death, blood from a stone, it just doesn't bode well for the future of a society...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> *@ Dr Mike *- thanks for your comments, you make good points & relate it to your life, that's all we can do, talk from experience.
> 
> But I think I'm just wary of the "trickle down effect" that you seem to be talking to, eg. the disparity between very rich & middle/low income earners kind of powering the economy. It's not a problem of the rich being rich, it's a problem with the *widening "gap." *Eg. here in Australia in about the mid c20th. (eg. post-1945) an average worker could pay of a mortgage in less than 5 years (I've even heard some people say it was about 2-3 years). Now you'd be lucky to pay that in say 20 years or more (& some people will never "break in" to the property market, to going towards owning their own home). Who is benefiting from this "sexing up" of property prices? It's certainly not the middle/low income earners. This is just one example. I think it was more equitable in the post-war period, less divided along class/income lines. That's maybe why there was more optimism & cohesion in society (well, generally speaking, there were problems then as now, of course, I'm not trying to simplify/reduce these things). But now it's increasingly a case of the few "haves" versus the more "have nots" (or those who have much less).
> 
> As I said, this does not bode well for a cohesive, unified society or polity. To take an extreme example, Marie Antoinette said to those starving in France before the Revolution (1789) - "Let them eat cake." In the original French, a more accurate translation would be "Let them eat bread." But in any case, these people were not amused, and as we know, she got her head chopped off for it. I'm no supporter of that kind of "mob mentality" violence, but let's face it, looking at history this kind of have/have not division breeds problems of all kinds. I'm not going to relate it to what's going on now eg. in London, that would be silly as I know little about that situation. But I'm making a general point that when people at the middle/bottom are being squeezed to death, blood from a stone, it just doesn't bode well for the future of a society...


Her attitude toward poverty was the traditional one. What had changed was the power of the poor to do something about it.

We're not quite back where we were in 1789, but we (assuming no one here is actually "ruling class") have definitely lost ground since 1979.

As was always the case, our own acquiescence is one of the main reasons.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...As was always the case, our own acquiescence is one of the main reasons.


Which makes me think, most of the budgets of "developed" countries are spent on the military (except maybe Switzerland, that doesn't have an army, & Japan also doesn't have much of one either). It's what former US President Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex." This could apply equally to the former USSR as the USA. Look at what's going on in the world now? What's driving all this? People bandy about the word "elite" when describing classical music lovers of various sorts (esp. the contemporary, boy do we love a "whipping boy" there) but let's face it, the "real" "elites" are the ones driving various agendas & have been doing so for yonks. I think it's quite easy to fall into the usual "us versus them" cliches & false dichotomies without questioning the wider issues at hand (& no, I don't really agree much with the overall premise of the article, I'm only going off those statistics which it sited re. the increasing "gap" between rich & middle/lower income earners & also most of the wealth being owned by a very small "clique.")...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ceos-and-tea-partiers-shut-up-and-pay-taxes-2011-08-12

Roughly, this is my perspective too. Social order can't be taken for granted, and I am mistaken if there aren't some fairly significant fissures in ours already.


----------

