A song lyric says: "When all you've got is nothing, there's a lot to go around." Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley conducted experiments that show poor people tend to be more generous than rich people.
Did anyone else think, "duh!" when they read the last line of that quote? Link -via Digg
(Image credit: Flickr user Kathryn Harper)
In one experiment in particular, led by doctoral student, Paul Piff and his researchers, participants completed a questionnaire reporting their socioeconomic status and a few days later were provided with $10 to share anonymously. The findings concluded the more generous of the income brackets were on the lower-income scale. A recent national survey
reiterates the results, revealing lower-income people give more of their hard-earned money to charity than the wealthy.
At a time when the richest one percent of Americans own more than the bottom 90 percent combined, Piff and his colleagues' findings are more than a little timely. "Our data suggests that an ironic and self-perpetuating dynamic may in part explain this trend," the study researchers write, to be published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. "Whereas lower-class individuals may give more of their resources away, upper-class individuals may tend to preserve and hold onto their wealth. This differential pattern of giving versus saving among upper--and lower-- class people could serve to exacerbate economic inequality in society."
Did anyone else think, "duh!" when they read the last line of that quote? Link -via Digg
(Image credit: Flickr user Kathryn Harper)
So what's your point? That poor people are worthless?
No rich person ever became wealthy without the thousands of poor and middle-income people who either worked for them or bought their products.
> Che is dead: "... the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent" of taxes.
And why shouldn't they? They own 40% of the wealth! Probably more.
And regarding the 40% of American who pay NO income taxes at all... they have no money left after paying their bills. I suppose you want them to pay their fair share and give the super rich a break? Sheesh.
> lulu: "And all the anti-rich sentiment is just nonsense, isn't it."
There is no anti-rich sentiment. It's an anti- "people who hate to help the poor, and make up all sorts of excuses for not doing so" sentiment.
> nifrek: "Hello people that are somehow annoyed by the article. I assume you are rich ..."
It has been my observation that it is not so much the rich defending themselves who make the rediculous comments you see here, but rather followers of the likes of Rush Limbaugh. They tend to be hard-working, healthy, white males with little capacity to think for themselves. They tend to be (self-proclaimed) strong Christians, but somehow forget the most important of Jesus' commandments.
I've often wondered who is more generous, the poor or the wealthy. I know that I became more generous myself after suffering hardship, and am more generous now that I'm somewhat poor than I was years ago when I had a great job and a lot of money. I was more self absorbed back then. BTW, that was when I was a conservative.
Like others, I've observed that poor people APPEAR to be more generous than wealthy people. But I think we need to remind ourselves that a wealthy person may be very generous but not one who wears it on his sleeve. Maybe he donates nothing at store checkouts, but hundreds of thousands to his favorite causes.
So while I find the study interesting, I take it with a grain of salt.
I just find it funny that every time there's an article with statistics or some study results, this always happens. I guess when people personally disagree with a study when seeing the results, it's obviously because the study is biased or dumb, and there is absolutely no way it can be true.
A study, no matter how big it is, is still just a study and is not universal truth.
Personally I find it NEAT that low-income people are more generous, and that is all.
I especially like the "rich people peeling the $100 bills off the bundle". I've never seen someone do that in a grocery store. Must be interesting to shop there.
Rhinny, you work in a store that sells $30 shampoos? Why are you helping to contribute to such excess? Evil!
Maybe rich people are just less inclined to give because they know they're being judged. If they donate $1, people will say "Why didn't they donate $2? THEY can afford it."
People without money know that's not necessarily the case (at all), because they're living it. So they give.