Study finds rich, upper-class more likely to cheat

[Michael]

Study finds rich, upper-class more likely to cheat

I love this study. Not only did they find that the upper-class are more likely to lie, cheat and steal (note: these are the technocrats running the government and central banks) they went so far as to STEAL candy from a baby!!! Serioulsy, they left a dish of candy, which was clearly intended FOR THE CHILDREN and the upper class had no qualms stealing more than their fair share of candy from it! Outright f*cking pigs!!!

Haaa!!!!

These are the people who run the government. They're either IN it getting as much as they can or buying it off to get as much as they can. They do NOT care about YOU. They do NOT care about planet Earth. They're completely insanely self-interested people and under the present monetary system you can not win against them. They'd rip your eyes out before you had a chance to blink. They're dreaming of how they can Farm more out of you. As it stands it's ONLY you and your wife/husband working.... gee how about we get those kids through grade 10 and get them on the Farm making us some milk.

You think you're going to get one over on this type of parasite? No F_ing way. People like this built the system we're being Farmed in. The Cattle clamor for a bit of grass, which the Farmer gives them, as he crams them ever tighter in their tiny "Patriot Act" secured pens. Wake the F_CK UP!

Oh my God, the TV told me that if we don't bail out the Too Big Too Fail Banks we'd be living in the Stone Age now and pointing at fire going Ugg... feyer!
Oh my Gods, if we don't keep the Too Big Too Fail Banks too big to fail, we'll never be able to compete with all the other Farmers!
Oh my Gods, did you see Britney's hair moo moo....
Oh my Terrorists moo.
Oh my moo moo moo.
We just need to moo to moo tax em a moo more moo... mooo moooo moooo..... moo moo...

[adoucette]

LOL

In another test using a game of dice, given the opportunity to win a $50 prize, people who self-reported high socio-economic status were more likely to lie and say that they had rolled higher numbers than they actually had.

Of course they couldn't have lied about their self-reported high socio-economic status....

[billvon]

moo moo moo. We just need to moo to moo tax em a moo more moo... mooo moooo moooo..... moo moo...

You're going off the deep end here . . . .

I predict we'll see more and more of this as the election approaches.

[Michael]

Look, it's an interesting study. I don't expect any change to come about during this election cycle. Obama will be reelected, he'll probably hire more Goldies and the US economy will be propped up a bit longer as the Fed tries to monetize the debt, pensioners who didn't get a good rental property before the bubble will be wiped out and we'll continue to hemorrhage jobs to Asia, only now more of those will be highly skilled.

While tongue and cheek it is moo, errrr reality.

[Diode-Man]

Michael said "...They're completely insanely self-interested people and under the present monetary system you can not win against them... "

Sad but true. Where will humanity be in 10,000 years with that kind of people running everything?

[MichaelAnsusinha]

Why does this have to secretly be a political debate?

Honestly, I feel like this study is structured to fit exactly what people want to hear; people that potentially harbor some bitterness want to verify their belief in the stereotypical evil scrooge typically stealing candy from a baby, and would like to confirm their jealousy at the stereotype that rich people have cold hearts.

However, the first thing that came to my mind was: What about the ghettos and crime-ridden slums, or the safe and clean streets of a posh neighborhood? Why does it seem that wealthy private schools tend to be better behaved than crowded urban schools in impoverished areas, with the added exacerbating effect of having low test scores?

I also find it humorously ironic that the OP is swearing and using questionable language XD

[Dinosaur]

Maybe behavior of a noticable percentage of the wealthy has changed drastically since I had occasion to come in contact with such people. I think there are still many whose behavoir is based on a decent code of ethics.

After leaving a military think tank organization in 1954, I got a job with a computer manufacturer.

From 1954 to circa 1965, about half of my time was spent working with customers. I answered questions on behalf of salesmen prior to a sale & trained programmers for customers after a sale as well as doing some programming of applications too tuff for customer programmers.

In that era, a mainframe was a major purchase. I came in contact with presidents/owners of smaller companies & vice presidents of major corporations.

The powerful men I came to know seemed to have integrity & their behavior was guided by decent ethics.

The economic history of the USA & other industrial nations is interesting to contemplate.

For well over 100 years, a person became wealthy by establishing & running an efficient business which provided products which could be sold to a large number of consumers. This era lasted from circa 1750-1800 to circa 1915-1945. There are differences of opinion on the start and end of this era. I think that the system started to change circa 1910 to 1920, but the economic engine in the USA was not noticeably slowing up until circa 1960.

We have evolved into a system in which business must cope with pay to play circumstances, making it necessary to employ lobbyists & finance political campaigns. This effects prices to the disadvantage of the consumer.

This current system supports large government bureaucracies at the local, state, & federal level. Government provides a lot of necessary services, but it is overhead: It produces no useful products. Until circa 1940 to 1950-1960, the cost of government was a small percentage of the Gross National Product.

The income earned by lawyers & the money levied due to civil suits are expenses which are overhead rather than productive.

Regulatory laws result in a large amount of expenses for businesses required in order to comply with such laws.

There is a lot of money made by arranging mergers & due to other activities which are non productive.

The above is not an exhaustive list of unproductive overhead in our current system.

The above changes in the system might have had an effect on the ethics of the wealthy. The above reminds me of a very meaningful joke relating to advertising.

Executive at the country club states that his company has a multi-million dollar advertising budget. He says he is sure that half of the budget is wasted on ineffective adds & commercials. A member asks: “Why not cut your budget in half?” The executive relies: “I cannot identify which advertising expenses are ineffective. I do not know which half of the budget should not be spent.”

A similar situation applies to various costs of government activities & regulations.

There are some people attitudes/psychology which seem very different in today’s USA.

My father was born circa 1875 (I was born late in his life). I remember him saying that with very few exceptions, judges, policemen, & politicians had integrity, were competent, & were respected for the way they did their jobs. There are a lot more exceptions in the last 30-40+ years.

In the first half of my life, the wealthy people I knew were proud of their abilities, efficiency, & ethics. They did not say much about their wealth. The money they made seemed to be a way of keeping score in a game they enjoyed playing. In the last 30-40 years, they seem more proud of their wealth. This difference in attitude seems to especially apply to the wives of wealthy men.

When I was 5-9 years old, the depression which started in 1929 was still a serious problem for many. I remember my parents talking about men in the neighborhood whose families were suffering badly, but they were too proud to accept charity or aid from government programs. Today, there are many who are proud of their ability to work the system.

Working men used to seem proud of a job well done. This was especially true of taylors, handymen, TV repair people, et cetra but also seemed true of factory workers & sales clerks. This attitude does not seem common today.

When I was 12 to 30 years old, there seemed to be few bullies who picked on the helpless. A common phrase which usually curtailed bullies: “Are you afraid to pick on somebody your own size?” It was unthinkable for 2-3 to pick on one person: Such action was considered shameful & seldom occurred. Since that era we have evolved to behavior exemplified by a comment I once heard in a bar: “If somebody hurts a member of our gang (a motorcycle club), all of us get revenge for our brother.” The person making this remark had pride in his voice: It seemed noble to him to have many beat up on one person.

When I was active in sports, any hint of gloating was disparaged & considered shameful. Golfers & tennis players did not do fist-pumping. Football players did not perform in the end zone.

In my opinion, our culture has evolved in a very bad direction. I do not expect it to get better in the few years I have left. I hope it evolves into a better system in the future, although I suspect that a better system will only rise Phoenix-like after a revolution or a collapse of the current system.

[chimpkin]

The rich used to have an ethic of stewardship.
They don't anymore, they are entirely mercenary.
Henry Ford paid his workers well enough so that they could buy his cars, not because he was a nice guy.
He just understood the circularity of the domestic market.

I stopped watching the news, so I would not end up making incoherent mooing noises.

[adoucette]

Henry Ford paid his workers enough so they could buy his cars and because he was a nice guy.

http://learningtogive.org/papers/paper95.html

As to the rich today?

In 2011 America’s top 50 donors gave a total of $10.4-billion to charities and foundations.

[Yazata]

Why does this have to secretly be a political debate?

It's not exactly secret.

What I don't understand is why the Sciforums moderators allow threads like this one to remain up here in the science hierarchy. It really belongs down in 'politics', or in the cesspool. (Essentially the same thing in my opinion.)

Honestly, I feel like this study is structured to fit exactly what people want to hear

I agree. I'm typically skeptical about the whole idea of "studies" in the so-called "social sciences". They are often little more than an author's attempt to associate his/her favored political conclusions with the respect that the word 'science' still generates among laypeople.

It's unfortunate that as it becomes more and more brazen and laypeople increasingly sense that they are being rhetorically manipulated, their cynicism rises and their respect for science in general declines.

However, the first thing that came to my mind was: What about the ghettos and crime-ridden slums, or the safe and clean streets of a posh neighborhood? Why does it seem that wealthy private schools tend to be better behaved than crowded urban schools in impoverished areas, with the added exacerbating effect of having low test scores?

I had the same thought.

Neighborhood crime rates almost always have a strong negative correlation with neighborhood wealth. The wealthiest neighborhoods have the lowest rates of theft, robbery and assault, and their posh shopping areas are typically see very little violence or shoplifting. The poorest neighborhoods are often places where you wouldn't want to walk down the street even during the day, where small businesses resemble fortresses, with steel bars across their windows and loaded firearms behind the counter.

I'm not sure that deep down in their hearts-of-hearts, wealthy people are really all that superior to poor people, ethically speaking. It's just that wealthy people find it much easier to satisfy their desires in more socially-acceptable ways. If a poor person really wants an X and can't afford it, he or she is going to tempted to steal it. If a rich person really wants an X, stepping into a store and buying an X is simple and trivial. There's just a lot less motivation to try to score an X by illegal means, by preying on somebody else. It's all a matter of desire and temptation.

I also find it humorously ironic that the OP is swearing and using questionable language XD

Yeah, he was kind of hysterical, wasn't he?

Good post and I agree with you.

[mammador]

so the upper classes are "bad people", because some study says so?

[Gremmie]

so the upper classes are "bad people", because some study says so?

Yes.

[Syzygys]

Henry Ford paid his workers enough so they could buy his cars and because he was a nice guy.

Let's not exaggerate with the nice guy. By increasing the workers' salary, he created extra demand for the cars. It wasn't out of his good heart...

[GeoffP]

Of course the rich and powerful cheat. Because they're spoiled, vicious, bigoted monsters. They need dispersing.

[Epictetus]

'Behind every great fortune is a great crime', as Balzac said. People are stinking rich because they lied, cheated or outright stole to get that way, and if they didn't, than their dads or grandads did. It's not surprising at all that the rich cheat, that's how they got rich in the first place.

Consider the Japanese. They are the most honest, moral law-abiding people in the world. I once tried t leave a tip at a restaurant. A busboy ran three blocks down the street to return the money. Another time I forgot a cheap pen I was using at a post office. About six weeks later I visited the post office again, and they gave me my pen! (They knew it was mine because of the English-language ad on it). Once I left my bicycle unlocked by a train station, not caring if someone took it because I thought I would never return. Nine months later I did return after all. There was my bicycle!

My point is that Japanese politicians dip into the till and be as corrupt as politicians anywhere. They must have started out as honest as any other Japanese, but the temptations are too great. Absolute power... yadda yadda yadda. Rich people cheat because their positions enable them to do so. Perhaps in many cases they have inherited their position of responsibility, and if dad and grandad did it...

[Dinosaur]

The only black mark I have read relating to Henry Ford is that he was anti-Semitic. In his era, this was a common attitude across all sociological/economic classes, with the Quakers being the only exception of which I am aware. I do not remember any account of his taking action to hurt Jews or other minorities. I have never heard that he belonged to the minority group of anti-Semites who advocated extreme action like physical abuse.

He claimed two reasons for paying $5 per day when the going rate was $3 per day.

He expected the extra pay to result in the best & the brightest working for him. He thought that the extra productivity would more than make up for the higher payroll costs.

He had an ambition to sell one million cars in a single year. At the time, only the affluent could afford to buy a car. He knew he could only sell one million cars in a year if a typical member of the working class could afford to buy one. He expected his actions (over decades) to result in a general increase in the salary of the typical worker.

Some consider the latter reason to be Ford’s primary goal.

Somebody once said the following.

The entrepreneur is playing a game he enjoys playing. Money is merely the way he keeps score.

[Dinosaur]

The linked-to study does not come close to supporting the attitudes shown by various posters. The only quantitative data is the following.

"Even in people for whom $50 is a relatively small amount of money, cheating was three times as high," said lead author Paul Piff of UC Berkeley.

So if 1% of poor people cheat, 3% of the affluent cheat? 5% —>> 15? 10% —>> 30%? Note that the above relates to people for whom $50.00 is a relatively small amount of money. Who does this criteria include? A person making $100,000 to $200,000 per year probably considers $50 to be a small amount. Does 100 to 200 grand qualify a person as rich upper class? That is not my definition of rich upper class.

Note the following remarks which strongly imply that all rich/powerful people have the same heinous behavior.

Of course the rich and powerful cheat. Because they're spoiled, vicious, bigoted monsters.

People are stinking rich because they lied, cheated or outright stole to get that way, and if they didn't, than their dads or grandads did. It's not surprising at all that the rich cheat, that's how they got rich in the first place.

The study does not support the above opinions.

I do not remember any evidence that the so called robber barons stole, lied, or cheated. I know of no evidence that Gates or Buffet lied, stole, or cheated. As mentioned in a previous post, I have had dealings with half a dozen or more very rich individuals, none of whom seemed like cheaters.

What does the study actually show? Does it claim that more than 50% of the rich cheat? More than 25% ? If they had evidence that even 20% cheated, I would expect them to mention it. They only claim that a higher % of the rich cheat. Note that the 3 times as many (see above) applies to one experiment. What do the other experiments indicate: 8% versus 5% ? 12% versus 10% ?

The study does not provide any data relating to the subjects of the experiments. I suspect that the study did not include any ulta-poor from the worst sections of large cities with high crime rates. I would expect this group to be the worst.

BTW: What subjects were chosen for this study? Were random samples chosen from a large group of rich folks & a large group of poor folks? I think this is a preferred experimental design.

Is the following considered cheating?

And when given a jar of candy that they were told was for children in a nearby lab - though they could take some if they wanted - the richest people took more candy than anyone else.

Note the bolded (by me) phrase in the above. No quantity data in this example. Did the rich take 4 pieces from a bowl containing 500 small pieces of candy while others only took 2 pieces? 10 pieces instead of 5? Consider 10 pieces versus 5: Quite significant if there were only 50-100 pieces available; Not so significant if 500 to 1000 pieces were available. Was there any control of the amount of that type of candy the rich & poor subjects normally ate? This sort of data might be have an effect.

BTW: I tend to be suspicious of various studies alleged to tell us about how people behave. They often set up unnatural circumstances with potential for bias. An extreme example:

There was a study which had a person claim to have left a valuable watch in a phone booth. The college students who ran this experiment asked a person coming from the booth if they would allow a search to verify that he had not taken the watch.

A surprisingly high % consented to a search.

I am sure that none of the students choose to interrogate somebody who looked like an NFL linebacker. The smaller students might have selected timid looking subjects. I wonder if any choose a subject who was his size or larger, rather than subjects who were smaller.

[quadraphonics]

so the upper classes are "bad people", because some study says so?

I dunno about that, but thread necros are bad people because teh interwebs says so.

[iceaura]

Does 100 to 200 grand qualify a person as rich upper class? That is not my definition of rich upper class.

It'll do until another comes along.

If the upper 10% or so are not upper class, the term has little meaning.

I suspect that the study did not include any ulta-poor from the worst sections of large cities with high crime rates. I would expect this group to be the worst.
- - -
- - -
I am sure that none of the students choose to interrogate somebody who looked like an NFL linebacker.

The odd thing is that this kind of objection - imaginary events presumed to counter actual events - seems to become accepted after awhile - with enough repetition, as if it had the weight of physical reality.

If we are going to consider acts of imagination as evidence, we should include the pros - authors of fiction well informed by study of history etc. Here's G.K. Chesterton:

The rich are the scum of the earth in every country