
Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, 'Pernicious' Effects of Economic Inequality - deusclovis
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/jan-june13/makingsense_06-21.html
======
riggins
I didn't like the intersection example.

They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'.

That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it
differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as
drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you
have a totally banal observation.

What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the
behavior.

For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of
an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum).

So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is
$400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I
bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.

~~~
gregpilling
or you could get caught speeding and face a fine of $1,000,000
[http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/swedish-man-may-pay-
large...](http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/swedish-man-may-pay-largest-
speeding-fine-ever/)

~~~
riggins
cool. so some countries already have % of income based fines.

~~~
HarryHirsch
Germany does this, for example. Criminal fines are set by the judge in "daily
rates", and 30 of them make up the defendant's monthly income.

Over there the judge has some leeway for creative sentencing. I remember this
case where one fellow ran the numbers and figured it would be cheaper for him
to pay the occasional fine for parking in a no-parking zone than pay the
parking meter. This didn't go down well with the judge, he argued that road
signs are not made to look pretty, they serve to regulate traffic on the
public roadways. That fellow had to hand in his license, he was banned from
the road for five years, and a re-application after a ban involves a chat with
a traffic psychologist.

~~~
effbott
5 year ban for parking violations? That seems extreme.

~~~
pessimizer
For inadvertent or pragmatic violations, but to say "Go ahead and fine me, I
don't care" is pretty flagrant.

~~~
sokoloff
In college (1991 +/\- 2), garage parking in Harvard Square was $15 for an
evening. Resident parking violations were $10.

I regularly parked in resident parking areas, getting tickets perhaps half the
time, rather than the certainty of a higher price in a garage.

As an engineer, that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. (Resident parking
violations are now much more expensive, so this loophole is largely fixed.)

~~~
pessimizer
>As an engineer, that seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

But it was a bad thing to do, because you were taking parking spaces from the
people they were for. Their fine structure was broken, but your moral calculus
was the problem.

------
tagawa
From the article, there's "an apparent link between wealth and, well, unseemly
behavior", but is that because in some cases, unseemly behavior leads to
increased wealth? It's the same old correlation/causation question that
doesn't seem to have been looked into.

~~~
ufo
From what I read it seems that they controlled for that. Even in the
experimental game setting, where both players are just as rich in real life,
the player thats richer inside the game starts exibiting those unseemly
behaviours.

> But we found consistently with people who were the rich players that they
> actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich
> people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels
> that we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouths full, so they
> were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person.

~~~
notahacker
The monopoly experiment as described in the article doesn't sound like
especially convincing evidence for the hypothesis that wealth makes people
inconsiderate though: the researchers - with openly stated personal biases -
observed that people playing a game rigged in their favour snacked more, and
then usually didn't dispute their entitlement to win the game after winning. I
don't believe that actually illustrates anything about wealth at all. You'd
have to go some way to convince me that Monopoly is a good proxy for wealth,
never mind explaining away competing explanations for the exhibited behaviour
not associated with courtesy or wealth (winners are generally not disposed
towards disavowing their entitlement to win, and those with a simpler
challenge have every reason to enjoy themselves more or concentrate less). If
his findings suggested that people that started off "rich" were more likely to
feel they deserved to win than winners of a fair game it would have been a
more interesting finding...

------
abbazabba
I want to play devils advocate here.

Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it
wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within
the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every
decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal,
than people who don't take all but one.

In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?

I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?

~~~
rquantz
_I want to play devils advocate here._

You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here,
who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather
than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay.

 _Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it
wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within
the bounds specified._

Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral
behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking
as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a
cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with,
everyone else be damned.

 _In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?_

Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants
in addition to your own.

~~~
abbazabba
Thanks for the insight. But why is taking a little bit more here and there
considered immoral? Isn't it the fault of the people setting the
specifications, or rules, or laws for failing to be specific?

Is there anyone else that shares my thoughts?

~~~
rquantz
Because morality and law (and/or rules) do not intersect perfectly. If murder
were legal, would it not be my fault if I killed someone?

------
sudhirj
I can share some observations based on changes in my own life.

I've always considered myself and safe and considerate driver. I'm quite nice
to people on the road and I usually stop for pedestrians even though we have
no law enforcement in this regard here in India.

I recently bought myself the most expensive locally made bike available here,
which also happens to be the biggest and most powerful on the road
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw)).
This also happens to coincide with a change of jobs and a substantial 250%
increase in pay, suddenly putting me well into the 0.1% in my city.

Do I stop / slow down for pedestrians less often? Yes.

Do I ignore homeless people and beggars more often? Yes, but I rationalize
that by telling myself I don't want to encourage them.

Would I take the candy? No. But I might if they were AWS credits that were
being used for entertaining children with games. I might not if they were
going to the Khan Academy instead.

Do I feel entitled to all this? Maybe. I do try to be the best at what I do,
love programming and spent a lot of time learning to negotiate for what I
think my skills are worth. On the flip side I've started to assume that
everyone has had the same opportunities and possibilities that I've had, and
that if they wanted a better life they should have worked harder for it.

------
jstanley
I don't think the example with the sweets is fair. The participants were
explicitly told that they can take some.

~~~
DougN7
Yes, it was OK to take _some_, but why did the rich take _more_?

~~~
thedrbrian
Well they're just hacking the system, seeing just how much they can get away
with, seeing just how far they can push the rules before someone explicitly
tells them to stop.

~~~
RodericDay
I guess that's _one_ way to look at it

------
gwern
I put together citations & fulltext links for some of these studies in
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/dtg/notes_on_the_psychology_of_power/)

