The Money-Empathy Gap

[joec]

Thought this article would be a nice read for the folks here…

http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7

I tend to agree that when I had more wealth according to my own eyes, I was more out for myself to “get ahead”. This was more in the valley during the IPO days of trying to make millions, etc…

Silicon Valley, IMO is a very different world (and probably NY tech as well now) and for a lot of the folks who moved down here to SD, did you just get tired of the endless get rich, get ahead, non-stop working mindset of the valley?

I do see a lot of SV types as holier than everyone else and see it all the time in various Bloomberg interviews with these new CEOs and multi-billonaires now. Yes, part of that is extreme jealously of some of these folks as well, but being a “poor” dude now and having taken work in other industries as well as being self employed has certainly changed my perspective on how the rest of the world/US lives/works as well. The wealth of these new companies, workers, CEOs is insane.

Oh well, some of these articles on this nymag site is resonating with me for some reason.

[paramount]

“While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff says, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people. It makes them more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.”

[CA renter]

There are an awful lot of variables, but I don’t doubt that wealth and empathy are negatively correlated. I do believe that a lack of empathy makes it easier for someone to get ahead because it often takes a sort of competitive ruthlessness to get ahead in a capitalist system.

I used to work for some very wealthy people many years ago, and it was always amusing to watch them calculate tips and other types of compensation for people who served them. They were FAR stingier than most “poor” people when it came to tipping, etc. Of course, they would argue that being stingy is how one accrues wealth and gets ahead (and they’d be right). Just something that really struck me back then.

Of course, after calculating an exact 10% tip for the overworked waitress who just served their party of 12 (and they’d complain more than most patrons, too), they would spend $100K+ on a new car for themselves, or do an $80K+ remodel on their kitchens every three years or so (and this was back in the 80s).

Another possibility is that people who are very successful need to feed the belief that they “did it all by themselves through hard work,” etc. If they were to honestly consider the role of luck in their good fortune, it would become apparent that their luck could run out just as easily. It’s frightening to think about, so they create a story in their heads that they are “different” and “more deserving” by default. If they empathize too much with those on the lower rungs, they will too easily see that, “there, but for the grace of God, go I,” so they distance themselves from those less fortunate.

And since truly successful people have to maintain their social networks (another major factor where most wealth is concerned), they can’t be seen associating with the “little people” unless it’s for some sort of charitable cause. They have to maintain the image — both for themselves and the other social climbers who surround them — that they are really and truly superior to the struggling masses.

[no_such_reality]

Typical Berkeley politics. They design a study and claim high social economic status results in ‘selfish’ and ‘asshole’ behavior, complex test, like they take a piece of candy in in a jar labeled for Children.

I red that see higher economic status not following pointless rules.

iow, non-lemming behavior.

while I have no doubt that those higher on the economic ladder put their self interest first, the choice of the language is inflammatory, political and divisive.

[EconProf]

Read the whole article and found it interesting. And long, really long. But it seemed flawed in that it mostly depicted researchers who had reached a conclusion, then went about conducting experiments to back up their theories.
Would like to see the peer-review comments from their academic colleagues. Some were cited in the article, but only half-heartedly, enough tokenism for the author to say that all sides were presented.

[EconProf]

In the never-ending debate about whether the more wealthy are generous, I am encouraged by the Bill Gates/Warren Buffett behavior. They and dozens of other uber-rich have pledged to give at least half of their wealth to charities or philanthropies at death or before.

[scaredyclassic]

at a certain wealth level, philanthropy looks less like generosity and more like well, Im not sure…something else…. at least to me…

[cvmom]

[quote=6packscaredy]at a certain wealth level, philanthropy looks less like generosity and more like well, Im not sure…something else…. at least to me…[/quote]

Well, I’d sure rather some potentially fake generosity than some absolutely honest selfishness…

[scaredyclassic]

true.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=cvmom][quote=6packscaredy]at a certain wealth level, philanthropy looks less like generosity and more like well, Im not sure…something else…. at least to me…[/quote]

Well, I’d sure rather some potentially fake generosity than some absolutely honest selfishness…[/quote]

Absolutely honest selfishness is so rare I’m not sure where to find it these days

[scaredyclassic]

Pope Francis is moving me.

[njtosd]

[quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

He actually practices what he preaches. It shouldn’t be surprising, but it is. He is very refreshing.

[CA renter]

[quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

A very positive change in the Catholic church, IMO.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

Francis is moving me too.

Having said that I think most execs are assholes. Isn’t CNBC the channel for assholes? The constant loud voice talking, almost yelling squawk box format…

Then there’s Jon Stewart who’s an asshole to the assholes. A very effective way, I might add.

I think that for men it feels good to be an ass. More women in power would change that (although, right now, a lot of women have to be cunts to compete in the world of assholes).

Sorry it was an assrat way of saying this.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=6packscaredy]Pope Francis is moving me.[/quote]

Francis is moving me too.

Having said that I think most execs are assholes. Isn’t CNBC the channel for assholes? The constant loud voice talking, almost yelling squawk box format…

Then there’s Jon Stewart who’s an asshole to the assholes. A very effective way, I might add.

I think that for men it feels good to be an ass. More women in power would change that (although, right now, a lot of women have to be cunts to compete in the world of assholes).

Sorry it was an assrat way of saying this.[/quote]

FWIW – I believe that those who use the word c**t for women are no better than those who use the “N word” for African Americans. You and spdrun are the only ones on this board that think it’s ok to include it here (as far as I know).

[Author]

Posts