BramblingMan said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Oh ok, because that original comment I bolded that you said doesn't match up with what angle you're taking now though.

Actually, the original comment which you typed in bold does match up with the "angle" I'm taking now. I said i believe money is something that one earns through productivity. I did not say I was against charity, I said I was for productivity.

Let me explain: will i give a pan handler any money? No, I won't. Anyone can stand outside and beg; it's not productive and, in fact, it's annoying and bothersome. However, i wouldn't be against giving a school money to further their math and science department as that is a productive charity.

I also wouldnt cast poor judgment on someone who chose not to be as generous with their money. Its theirs, earned with their effort and work for their own happiness. Nothing wrong with keeping it if they choose to.

Hope that clears it up for you.

But that's just it, none of these billionaires are giving it to panhandlers, they are going to charities for the most part, so why even make that comment to begin with?

RPR said:

pfttt. most of us give away half our wealth on rent month each month, big deal.

Maybe you should consider spending your rent money on something you actually own rather than giving it away each month to a landlord.

Empress said:

RPR said:

pfttt. most of us give away half our wealth on rent month each month, big deal.

Maybe you should consider spending your rent money on something you actually own rather than giving it away each month to a landlord.

Yes Yes we know, its just joke. I'm lucky enough to own a paid home but dont dispense captain obvious advice in schumcky manners.

SUPRMAN said:

RPR said:

Pan handlers are usually mentally disabled, whether through genetic disorders or through alcohol or drug abuse.

I personally see no problem is helping them out if i can. Living in the streets is not a scam, it seems like a horrible way to live. If it's a scam the joke is on them.

People who give, give have a big heart, and usually have more to give.

Helping others is very productive. A cold heart, not so much.

Really?

The rich are different from you and me

They are more selfish

Jul 29th 2010

LIFE at the bottom is nasty, brutish and short. For this reason, heartless folk might assume that people in the lower social classes will be more self-interested and less inclined to consider the welfare of others than upper-class individuals, who can afford a certain noblesse oblige. A recent study, however, challenges this idea. Experiments by Paul Piff and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, reported this week in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggest precisely the opposite. It is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity.

In their first experiment, Dr Piff and his team recruited 115 people. To start with, these volunteers were asked to engage in a series of bogus activities, in order to create a misleading impression of the purpose of the research. Eventually, each was told he had been paired with an anonymous partner seated in a different room. Participants were given ten credits and advised that their task was to decide how many of these credits they wanted to keep for themselves and how many (if any) they wished to transfer to their partner. They were also told that the credits they had at the end of the game would be worth real money and that their partners would have no ability to interfere with the outcome.

A week before the game was run, participants were asked their ethnic backgrounds, sex, age, frequency of attendance at religious services and socioeconomic status. During this part of the study, they were presented with a drawing of a ladder with ten rungs on it. Each rung represented people of different levels of education, income and occupational status. They were asked to place an “X” on the rung they felt corresponded to where they stood relative to others in their own community.

The average number of credits people gave away was 4.1. However, an analysis of the results showed that generosity increased as participants’ assessment of their own social status fell. Those who rated themselves at the bottom of the ladder gave away 44% more of their credits than those who put their crosses at the top, even when the effects of age, sex, ethnicity and religiousness had been accounted for.

The prince and the pauper

In follow-up experiments, the researchers asked participants to imagine and write about a hypothetical interaction with someone who was extremely wealthy or extremely poor. This sort of storytelling is used routinely by psychologists when they wish to induce a temporary change in someone’s point of view.

[EDITED FOR COMPLIANCE- posted separately]

In this case priming made no difference to the lower classes. They always showed compassion to the latecomer. The upper classes, though, could be influenced. Those shown a compassion-inducing video behaved in a more sympathetic way than those shown emotionally neutral footage. That suggests the rich are capable of compassion, if somebody reminds them, but do not show it spontaneously.

One interpretation of all this might be that selfish people find it easier to become rich. Some of the experiments Dr Piff conducted, however, sorted people by the income of the family in which the participant grew up. This revealed that whether high status was inherited or earned made no difference—so the idea that it is the self-made who are especially selfish does not work. Dr Piff himself suggests that the increased compassion which seems to exist among the poor increases generosity and helpfulness, and promotes a level of trust and co-operation that can prove essential for survival during hard times.

Maybe that's why they're rich...they don't give their money away.

markpeg said:

I think Oprah Winfrey uses her money foolishly. A new car for everyone in her audience who probably drove to the taping in a fairly nice ride, for instance. I don't see her walking into Harlem to give away free cars to people who could really use them.

do some research before making a judgement about people... that whole audience was made up of school teachers who needed cars...

I live in Harlem and we're doing just fine without Oprah's money

BramblingMan said:

lezama said:

Most money isn't made from "productivity"... its made from the ownership of capital. Oprah's done both, and insofar as she makes a killing off the labor of others (ownership of capital) I think it's fair to expect her to give back... but you know, whether she chooses to give back so much is ultimately her perogative.

But in most likelihood she will... its not like she can take it to the grave with her, and she can't leave it to her dogs and she doesnt have kids... so she'll likely spread it around generously when she retires.

So you don't think using your capital wisely is also part of being productive?

First of all, most people don't start with their own financial capital - Oprah surely didn't. Most people borrow capital (from some entity that has been productive before them) and use that to get started. If they're productive and successful, they then acquire their own capital with which to further themselves and, thus, become more productive.

The person from whom they borrowed the capital charges a fee and that party makes money off of the money they lent (which was ultimately their money therefore they make money off their own money). This is still productive because your capital is producing more for the public - more products, more workers, more money.

So, yes, money is made from "productivity."

- I was only talking about 'productive' in the economic sense of producing exchange value. Of course 'using capital wisely' is a productive activity, but capital only begets more capital because it presupposes those employed by that capital (i.e. workers).

- My point was simply that ownership of capital presupposes a difference in class from those who do not have such ownership. And the majority of the people in the list of 40 billionaires giving back were all from wealthy families when they started. The Oprah example is an exception. As people move from being simply millionaires the multiplier effect isnt created from hard work, its created from acquisition of more capital (which produces wealth through ownership, not the productive activity of the owner). People don't acquire capital to work 70 hr weeks. They do it so they can sit on their asses, act as decision maker and strategiser and enjoy life.

- Lent money does not automatically suppose greater social productivity. Thats ridiculous. The majority of startups from lent capital fail, lets not forget that. And lets also not forget that just because you're employed doesn't mean that you're still not poor. Remember 1 out of every 4 American families are low-income. Thats a significant number that is disgraceful when you look at certain other highly developed economies.

When these people are asked to give back, its because the wealth gap is not getting smaller between the richest and poorest, its getting worse. This is not just in the US, but globally.