
Most Americans would rather keep wealth to themselves than help others - pmoriarty
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/americans-wealth-keep-help-others-robin-hood-reflexes-economic-inequality-study-a8263771.html
======
blhack
Hmmmm, seems like the independent can't really make up its mind on this one:
[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-
ne...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-new-zealand-
and-canada-top-list-of-world-s-most-generous-nations-a6849221.html)

>America has been named as the world’s most generous nation in the world,
where its citizens give the most to charity, according to a new report.

IMHO independent.co.uk is in the same tier as huffington post, buzzfeed, daily
mail etc. clickbait farms. This story is no different.

America is consistently rated as the most charitable country in the world.
Just because people don't support whatever specific form of wealth
redistribution this study was looking at, it doesn't mean that suddenly we're
all greedy jerks.

~~~
pmoriarty
America is first in absolute dollar amounts given, but not percentage-wise.

Also, when people and institutions give to charity, there is sometimes a
political or even financial incentive to do so. For instance, some charities
(like the Peace Corps) have been accused of spying for their governments, and
others like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been accused of being
used to funnel money to large corporations. In both cases, the underlying
motivation for donations could be more about helping the people giving the
money than about helping others in need. Without such motives, it's possible
that not nearly as much money would be given.

In the experiment the article is about, however, such political and financial
incentives didn't exist. It was purely about giving money to others without
any conceivable benefit to oneself. Thus, it could be a better gauge of an
actual urge to help others motive without any recompense than charitable
giving in the real world is.

------
aethertap
Here's another part that I think contributes to the "... inequality persists
in part because individuals are not averse enough to inequality,” based on my
own perception of the situation in my part of the country.

I think people are generally less willing to share what they have when they
feel insecure about their future. There is a LOT of uncertainty in front of
most people at this time, and in that case the reflex is to squirrel away as
much as possible for a rainy day. When you feel secure in your future, it's
easy to be generous, and it takes less stuff to fee like you have a surplus.
When you're worried about what the future holds, taking care of yourself and
your loved ones takes precedence.

I'd look at this as an interesting data point that probably gives some kind of
estimate of the combined effects of different levels of uncertainty about the
future _and_ the social views of income inequality in different places, but I
don't think it's nearly as clear-cut as it seems to be in the article.

------
Johnny555
If there was any certainty in the future of Medicare and Social Security, I
could be a lot more generous in my giving, but as it is now, I need to save
enough retirement money to cover uncertain medical insurance costs as well as
be prepared for lower (or no) Social Security payments than projected.

------
DrScump
A key takeaway from the study:

"They also found that participants who were most willing to take money from a
“wealthier” cardholder were _less_ likely to give their own funds to a
“poorer” one."

------
jaclaz
At first sight the scoop seems to me that the British (or at least the
Independent journalist) cannot count up to three:

>The researchers tested participants’ feelings about inequality by giving them
two Amazon gift cards in _two_ different amounts: $25, $50, or $75.

The actual paper (maybe) clears the matter:

[http://cess.nyu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/Bechtel.pdf](http://cess.nyu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2018/02/Bechtel.pdf)

>The two gift cards could take on three values, each corresponding to a
different type of inequality. In the "own poorer" condition the values were
$25 (own) and $75 (other). In the "own richer" condition the value of the gift
cards was reversed ($75, $25). In the "equality" condition the gift cards were
worth $50 each.

~~~
pmoriarty
The wording is ambiguous. It could be read either way.

The way you're reading it, there are three different amounts: three potential
amount for each of two cards.

But it's perfectly correct to read it as there being only two different
amounts: one final, chosen amount for each of two cards.

~~~
jaclaz
>But it's perfectly correct to read it as there being only two different
amounts: one final, chosen amount for each of two cards.

Well reading only the Independent article it was not so straightforward.

There are two cards and three values, as written in the original paper, it is
only funny (to me) in Italian we have a saying, that goes more or less like:

You did like the one that said that the four evangelists were three: Lucas and
Matthew.

------
thesumofall
> Of course, giving away an Amazon gift card isn't the same as fighting
> societal inequality. But the researchers believe these findings provide
> insight into government policy on a country-wide level. They pointed out
> that in Germany, where participants were more willing to equalise the gift
> card, the government has used taxes and transfers to reduce the poverty rate
> by 20 percentage points. In the US, where participants were less likely to
> equalise the gift card amounts, the poverty rate has been reduced by only 8
> points.

That’s a pretty wild jump. There are probably dozens of other factors that
might explain the outcome (e.g., different parenting styles, different degree
to which people “obey” the true intent of researchers, ...). And I’m even
sympathetic to the cause here

------
pithymaxim
The headline is misleading. 22 percent of Germans chose to fully equalize the
endowments (or "help others") compared to 17 percent of Americans. This seems
striking for how similar the proportions are, not how selfish the Americans
are.

------
tunesmith
Have there been any studies that purport to show what level of financial
"inequality" is healthy? I mean, the phrase:

    
    
        "Between 1989 and 2016, the amount of wealth held by the richest one per cent of Americans rose from just under 30 per cent to nearly 49 per cent" 
    

sounds like that's definitely in the wrong direction, but assuming something
other than purely flat (the top 1% gets 1% the wealth), is there an actual
distribution to shoot for other than "flatter than now"?

~~~
IAmEveryone
Inequality has one obvious and intuitive effect: the decreasing marginal
utility of money causes a decrease in total wellbeing with ncreasing
inequality. In easier terms: a wealthy CEO gets less use out of the $1000 they
spend on a bottle of champagne than a poor person would get from spending the
same money on food for the family. This is basically a truism as long as
people do any meaningful prioritization (which they obviously do).

There is a countering effect where inequality is a needed byproduct to
incentivize people to, for example, start businesses. This is also obviously
true in general.

The question is where these two curves intersect, I. e. whee the benefits are
no longer enough to compensate the loss from unequal distribution.

It seems likely that the US is long past this point at least in gerade to the
compensation of lawyers, top executives, or stock traders. After all, these
professions also exist in more equal societies and there’s no reason to
believe people cut out to be high-charging CEOs in those countries choose to
become couch potatoes and leave the $15,000,000 job to lesser individuals
because they require $150,000,000 to even bother.

On the startup side it’s a little more murky. But keep in mind that almost all
startup founders come from the financial security of an upper-middle class
family, and even in the US, the success of a Silicon Valley is rather unique.
It may be easier attributed to network effects, excellent universities, the
status of the English language, or the availability of capital.

Wikipedia has this summery with some empirical evidence:

 _Effects of inequality researchers have found include higher rates of health
and social problems, and lower rates of social goods,[112] a lower level of
economic utility in society from resources devoted on high-end
consumption,[113] and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital
is neglected for high-end consumption.[114] For the top 21 industrialised
countries, counting each person equally, life expectancy is lower in more
unequal countries (r = -.907).[115] A similar relationship exists among US
states (r = -.620).[116]

2013 Economics Nobel prize winner Robert J. Shiller said that rising
inequality in the United States and elsewhere is the most important
problem.[117]

Increasing inequality harms economic growth.[118]

The economic stratification of society into "elites" and "masses" played a
central role in the collapse of other advanced civilizations such as the
Roman, Han and Gupta empires.[119]_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Effects)

~~~
pmoriarty
_" It seems likely that the US is long past this point at least in gerade to
the compensation of lawyers, top executives, or stock traders"_

Most lawyers actually don't make that much money compared to CEOs (median
income of $118k vs $748k).[1][2]

[1] - [https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-
jobs/lawyer/salary](https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/lawyer/salary)

[2] - [https://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-
Salary.html](https://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executive-Officer-Salary.html)

------
mey
Most American's have no savings and are living paycheck to paycheck. For
example
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-
americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency)

------
briankelly
Another equally valid title would be "Americans are less entitled to the
wealth of others," and a better title would've pointed out "compared to
Germans." This is article is just click-baity and the central point isn't that
interesting without more countries of comparison in my opinion.

------
antisthenes
Studies about generosity with inconsequential amounts of money will yield
inconsequential results.

Obviously people won't behave the same if their hard-earned money was on the
line or if the sums were potentially life-altering.

------
dash2
Most bears would rather shit in the woods.

