
Study: Rich are less generous when they think there’s high economic inequality - pavornyoh
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/the-rich-are-less-generous-when-they-think-theres-high-economic-inequality/
======
imh
This is great reporting. The reporter explicitly pointed out it isn't
necessarily a causal effect instead of exploiting the misunderstanding that it
might be. Then she succinctly explains the findings and a few potential
interpretations without evangelizing any of them. She even linked to the
original paper! I wish more scientific reporting were like this.

(Note: There's a typo in the link to the original paper. It's missing a period
after pnas:
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511536112))

~~~
frostmatthew
> This is great reporting. The reporter explicitly pointed out it isn't
> necessarily a causal effect instead of exploiting the misunderstanding that
> it might be.

I agree this is great reporting but your comment suggests there is no causal
effect, which is _not_ the case as concluded by the researchers (or as
presented in this article).

Only the first part of the study doesn't demonstrate causality which is why
the author states "Of course, this association does not demonstrate causality"
which is why the researchers then "showed the study participants a pie chart
depicting simulated economic data in their home state" and that's how they
determined there _is_ a causal effect. In the abstract for the study which you
link to it even states "To better establish causality..."

------
necessity
I'm "rich" by my third world country standards. I used to make individual
(humble) donations when I was younger and lived in the same standard as the
majority of the population. Nowadays I don't. The more I earn the more the
government takes (now almost 50%), so it feels to me I'm already doing a
forcibly donation, as there are countless wealth distribution programs (which
didn't exist when they would be of use to me, and I did fine without them). I
have zero intentions of making any kind of donation, only if it works as a tax
reliever. I do however make regular donations to free software organizations
and other organizations that produce something that I use or like.

~~~
JamesBarney
When and where did you grow up?

~~~
necessity
Brazil in the 90's, before Plano Real. Welfare only really kicked in with Lula
in 02. At first it was great, helped a lot of people in need. It began to spin
out of control later though, together with gov. spending, credit incentives
and inflation.

------
jws
They suggest a couple of explanations:

 _those at the top may feel a) more entitled to their status; and b) more
worried about losing it_

I also suggest that with high income inequality the rich simply do not have
the ability to raise the entire lower class significantly with donations.
Individual giving is not an effective solution to the problems in their world.
They can still raise an individual up, but it does not address the problem.
Other solutions are called for.

With more equal income distribution a relatively wealthy person can help
individuals with anomalously poor situations resulting in a higher floor.

~~~
noobermin
_I also suggest that with high income inequality the rich simply do not have
the ability to raise the entire lower class significantly with donations_

The paper (linked elsewhere in the comments) suggests something along those
lines.

 _In addition, where greater inequality exists, the living conditions of the
poor are particularly bleak and the apparent costs of low economic standing
are more glaring. These settings may increase higher-income individuals’
concerns about losing their privileged position, concerns that in turn may
lead to less willingness to share resources with others. In contrast, where
inequality is low, higher-income individuals might be as generous as their
lower-income counterparts, or even more generous because their greater
capacity to give makes giving more affordable to them._

That reasoning might have not made it into the ars article.

While this is worthwhile discussion to have, I'm not sure it really explains
this effect. They found that lower income people (in the lower 15% range) in
those same unequal areas did not demonstrate this correlation. Are the poor
somehow _less aware_ of the beneficial impacts that a gift to another in the
dictator game will raise that other person's stature in life?

------
DavidWoof
One thing people outside the US may not realize about studies like this is
that a very large percentage of socioeconomic breakdowns in the US are proxies
for the traditional north-south civil war divide. Compare a map of income
inequality by state and overlay the 1860 election and you'll be looking at
extremely similar maps.

So, to a large degree, this study is merely saying that upper income people in
the US South are less generous than upper income people elsewhere in the
country, something that isn't a surprise to anybody to anybody who even
remotely follows US political trends.

[http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/07/17/united-
state...](http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/07/17/united-states-
income-inequality-map) of income inequality by state

~~~
didgeoridoo
Aren't NY, CT, MA, and DC the most unequal parts of the US? All "Union"? I
don't think your explanation is convincing.

~~~
carboncopy
In the above map, those areas are not marked with the "unequal" color, can you
share your source as a counterpoint?

Edit: the arstechnica article states DC is the most unequal place in the U.S.
It appears there is a disparity between the two sources.

~~~
didgeoridoo
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient)

That map is by county, while most inequality in the US is concentrated in the
cities; the most important drivers of state-level inequality are thus hidden.
It is not a very good map for this purpose.

~~~
carboncopy
Indeed, though your map is even lower resolution than the previous one.

I can agree that neither map tells the whole story, and the GP's premise is
strained at best.

------
icebraining
It should be noted that by "rich", it's meant everyone who earns $125k/y or
more (top 15% of the population).

~~~
deadalus
It should also be noted that the average annual income of the top 1 percent of
the population is $717,000.

~~~
jschwartzi
Is that a mean, median, or mode?

~~~
Dylan16807
Do you really think it could be mode?

(Also, it would be very strange to use "average of the top 1 percent" to mean
"99.5th percentile")

------
Alex3917
So as the consequences of being poor become more severe, people are more
likely to hoard money? Describing this as rich people being less generous
seems like a questionable interpretation.

~~~
daxfohl
Interesting thought but I'd still attribute it more toward a disconnect with
the "other side". OR, very high-disparity societies have such little social
mobility that donations are seen as futile _even if_ you'd be otherwise
inclined.

Regardless, generosity or the lack thereof, under the microscope, is just
physics no matter what the explanation.

------
datashovel
It sounds like a very reasonable way to react. If I'm a billionaire and,
because of my commute my upbringing or some other factors, regularly see
poverty-stricken neighborhoods and how those people live and how they're
treated by society I will do everything in my power to guarantee my family and
I will never be in that position.

The tough part seems to be convincing people we know how to end poverty,
because our track record is not great in this regard.

------
andrewdb
Perhaps this could be explained by the conflict between social power
(voluntary generosity and kindheartedness) and State power (compulsory
"generosity"). If the State taxes you, claiming that they will use the funds
for helping the less fortunate, you may perhaps be less compelled to help the
less fortunate voluntarily because you've already paid the State to do it for
you.

When you see a beggar on the street, you may feel compelled to give him money
or food, which is an act of your social power, but you may also feel compelled
to do nothing, thinking to yourself that you have no responsibility to help
the beggar, as the State has already extracted money from you in order to,
supposedly, meet the needs of people like the beggar.

~~~
tajen
This is exactly my feeling with the French president. I've voted for a leftish
president. Poverty is exactly how terrorism grows, when people are desperate,
and indeed those terrorists were born in France and Belgium. Now the only
decent leftish party of France uses the tax money... to kill people and plant
bombs in some remote country where our terrorists didn't grow up. This is
exactly how State power is misusing funds that were originally destined to
help the less fortunate.

------
brownbat
It's almost like there's a "scale of the problem" effect. If you see a picture
of one starving child, you're much more likely to give than if you're
presented with statistics on the three-some billion people who live on less
than $2.50 a day.

Maybe our minds bucket each tragedy we're presented as 'one problem,' then
estimate our ability to make a difference on that 'one problem' before
expending energy on it.

This heuristic produces inconsistent results, but it's not a crazy heuristic
if boiled down to: "fight the battles you can win."

One solution could be to remind people to subdivide problems and tasks into
goals that can be accomplished, not sure.

See also:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/11/05/36143385...](http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2014/11/05/361433850/why-
your-brain-wants-to-help-one-child-in-need-but-not-millions)

Citing: [http://globaljustice.uoregon.edu/files/2014/07/Whoever-
Saves...](http://globaljustice.uoregon.edu/files/2014/07/Whoever-Saves-One-
Life-Saves-the-World-1wda5u6.pdf)

And: [http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-
sta...](http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)

------
BurningFrog
Just a reminder that perhaps 1/3 of individual studies in social sciences are
wrong.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
Would appreciate a source to this claim, especially if this is trying to imply
that this is 1 of the 3.

~~~
BurningFrog
It's an estimation more than a provable fact.

I'm not claiming anything about this study more than that you shouldn't
blindly believe it.

------
maxxxxx
I think the more inequality there is the more poor and rich live in their own
worlds where they never see each other. That makes it harder to relate to each
other.

------
wwwdonohue
"Contrary to what you think, this is not Christian Grey's favorite Saturday
night activity"

Thanks Ars Technica.

