The majority of wealthy people became that way by some combination of lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, misrepresentation, intimidation (extortion and/or blackmail), market manipulation, insider trading, aggressive selling to vulnerable people such as seniors, etc...... If you succeed on Wall Street, you're most likely engaging in that behavior. Do people actually think that most of these billionaires added billions in value? That every exchange is voluntary and makes each side better off? Is the old lady with dementia who unknowingly signed up to a terrible annuity "better off". Was the woman with dementia a "sucker" for signing up and placing trust in the broker? The ethical way to become rich is largely by inventing or innovating. Corporate raiders such as Kravis, Icahn and Peltz are very far from being moral. Arguably sociopaths with a mean streak. Surprised with the naive posts.
Who, besides dementia sufferers, are being cheated by those rich people? Anyone with a sounds mind is surely making a rational decision that they probably benefits themselves. If they're just trading at better prices than the market, that still means they're providing value by actually being available to trade with.
People often conflate nebulous “evil” with more specific rational self-interest, good investments and cheating/underpaying/stealing from people.
There are a lot of middling rich people whom do underpay people because it works and don’t care about long-term views of themselves or of the relationship... this can sabotage greater opportunities later on or current income streams now (it’s a small world and a hyperconnected one). There are many whom don’t because it also reflects poorly on them and their associates, and it turns off their friends, potential customers, investors and partners... also some people have integrity and wouldn’t dream of it.
In fact, the more connected someone is, the less likely they are to screw people over because it’s a bigger risk. The big headlines of harassment or scams are the exceptions. Certainly, there are instutions like many banks whom obscure their wealth extraction from less rich and transfer it to their investor/owners. They are culpable but may not believe or realize they are.
Wealth is a spectrum, as are integrity and personality. How is squishy “science” going to “measure” take those nuances or mentally-compartmentalized/hidden wealth transfer into account?
> Wealth is a spectrum, as are integrity and personality. How is squishy “science” going to “measure” take those nuances or mentally-compartmentalized/hidden wealth transfer into account?
By measuring on a spectrum of wealth and integrity, and choosing a sample size so as to to ameliorate personality to p < .05. They have graphs of socioeconomic class vs. unethical behavior. A few studies also included priming the subjects to think in "greed is good" ways and measure the impact.
Do you have any research to back up that claim? In my experience, selfishness and self-interest leads to isolation where nobody will help you with anything worthwhile. Gotta care about other people and be a team player to succeed
I was super interested to read how they defined "rich". Is it just networth greater than X? Is someone who saves diligently for 50 years to get X also rich in their definition?
Sadly those details appear to be behind a paywall and it seems what they really wanted to determine was the relationship between greedy attitudes and social economic status although their summary does use the word rich plenty, again, without defining it.
Equally important is how you define "unethical." I'd imagine people in higher socioeconomic levels are more likely to lie in a negotiation or ignore traffic laws (traffic penalties fines are regressive in the sense they are fixed, skill in negotiating is probably correlated with skill in lying), but less likely to commit violent crimes or engage in drug abuse.
This is confirmation bias epitomized. Rich people mean? Or do rich people simply have a different view of the world than not-rich people? My kids think I am mean. They are not rich by comparison. The differences in our behaviors are the major reasons for our differences in incomes.
You imply there is a true sense of superiority somewhere. What could be more a true measure of general superiority than wealth? It comes from succeeding in a game that everyone's playing.
Having spent my teenage years in what would otherwise be called a ghetto and now living in a wealthier suburb, poor neighborhoods have way more selfish assholes. I'm very glad I got out of there.
I think being an asshole hurts you more than is helps you as you get richer.
I have the same experience. When I was younger I was puzzled when my friends mom (richer family) was so nice. Cooked large breakfast for us when I stayed over, etc. And his friends were nice. And they talked normally to each other and were funny and clever.
Where I came from, the norm was just anger. And the conversation was mostly putting each other down. Or challenging each other. Still trying to overcome that.
Sort of related, there are a lot of lessons learned and observations made when one changes social class.
At some point in my life, I've been close to both extremes. I've been a poor college student with a family and just barely below the poverty line because of the dependents. I was firmly middle class for my youth and then after starting my business. Selling my business has put me in the upper class section.
There are some broad stereotypes that can be made but the biggest difference I see is in how others respond to you and how the system responds to you.
> I think being an asshole hurts you more than is helps you as you get richer.
As a product of private school: my experience is yes and no. There are certainly some behaviors that hurt your success, and there are plenty of extremely successful people who are successful specifically because they are excellent human beings all-around. There are also plenty of people who are financially successful because they are exceptionally selfish and generally horrible to others, but not in overt or combative ways.
For me maybe not a ghetto but dirt poor people that rest of a small city referred to as 'miracles street' (drunks, poor people, police visits once a month) had bunch of decent people and friends I think will have contact for life whereas I got to know quite some rich people who were maybe smooth in contact but in reality they were awful backstabbers.
Depends how you look at it. I think rich people are more likely to look out for each other. You can often see this in the way our laws work, if the middle and lower classes are screwed over it's a huge fight to bring justice. But if rich people are screwed over, justice seems to come at a swift pace.
I think rich people treat rich people better and poor and middle classes tend to treat each other like trash but treat rich people like they are gods.
In that scenario there are more factors determining behaviour than availability of money.
A better comparison is between people in the same social bracket who have relatively more or less money, such as the Monopoly experiment where one player was given an intrinsic advantage.
You probably have a significant selection effect in play there. You would not notice the rich people you've encountered who were perfectly polite to you and did not have ostentatious displays of wealth that clearly labeled them as rich.
You may also be surprised to discover that the "rich asshole" who ducks into the spot in front of you with his Ferrari and then tells you off with his vigorously waving arms decorated with a Rolex could be entirely faking it, actually hip deep in debt and not able to afford what he's waving around. Unsurprisingly such people are often quite stressed. (I don't know "that guy" but I know some people who certainly trend in that direction and I believe would have required only small life pushes to be "that guy".)
>Rich people are assholes in my experience. They may have better manners and stuff, but their intentions are evil
I'd keep that attitude in check, if you are in a western nation you are likely in the top 1% - 2% in terms of income globally. Things would end pretty badly for you if 98% of the planet decided people like you are evil.
[+] [-] davidshalev|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] averagewall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trapperkeeper74|8 years ago|reply
There are a lot of middling rich people whom do underpay people because it works and don’t care about long-term views of themselves or of the relationship... this can sabotage greater opportunities later on or current income streams now (it’s a small world and a hyperconnected one). There are many whom don’t because it also reflects poorly on them and their associates, and it turns off their friends, potential customers, investors and partners... also some people have integrity and wouldn’t dream of it.
In fact, the more connected someone is, the less likely they are to screw people over because it’s a bigger risk. The big headlines of harassment or scams are the exceptions. Certainly, there are instutions like many banks whom obscure their wealth extraction from less rich and transfer it to their investor/owners. They are culpable but may not believe or realize they are.
Wealth is a spectrum, as are integrity and personality. How is squishy “science” going to “measure” take those nuances or mentally-compartmentalized/hidden wealth transfer into account?
[+] [-] hwillis|8 years ago|reply
By measuring on a spectrum of wealth and integrity, and choosing a sample size so as to to ameliorate personality to p < .05. They have graphs of socioeconomic class vs. unethical behavior. A few studies also included priming the subjects to think in "greed is good" ways and measure the impact.
[+] [-] drawkbox|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warent|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esmi|8 years ago|reply
Sadly those details appear to be behind a paywall and it seems what they really wanted to determine was the relationship between greedy attitudes and social economic status although their summary does use the word rich plenty, again, without defining it.
[+] [-] civilian|8 years ago|reply
Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior: https://sci-hub.io/http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.a...
A 4-study replication of the moderating effects of greed on socioeconomic status and unethical behaviour https://sci-hub.io/https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2016...
[+] [-] chibg10|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stmfreak|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Simulacra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] averagewall|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randyrand|8 years ago|reply
Having spent my teenage years in what would otherwise be called a ghetto and now living in a wealthier suburb, poor neighborhoods have way more selfish assholes. I'm very glad I got out of there.
I think being an asshole hurts you more than is helps you as you get richer.
[+] [-] mruniverse|8 years ago|reply
Where I came from, the norm was just anger. And the conversation was mostly putting each other down. Or challenging each other. Still trying to overcome that.
[+] [-] KGIII|8 years ago|reply
At some point in my life, I've been close to both extremes. I've been a poor college student with a family and just barely below the poverty line because of the dependents. I was firmly middle class for my youth and then after starting my business. Selling my business has put me in the upper class section.
There are some broad stereotypes that can be made but the biggest difference I see is in how others respond to you and how the system responds to you.
[+] [-] cirgue|8 years ago|reply
As a product of private school: my experience is yes and no. There are certainly some behaviors that hurt your success, and there are plenty of extremely successful people who are successful specifically because they are excellent human beings all-around. There are also plenty of people who are financially successful because they are exceptionally selfish and generally horrible to others, but not in overt or combative ways.
[+] [-] ozim|8 years ago|reply
So your mileage may vary...
[+] [-] tiggybear|8 years ago|reply
I think rich people treat rich people better and poor and middle classes tend to treat each other like trash but treat rich people like they are gods.
[+] [-] manicdee|8 years ago|reply
A better comparison is between people in the same social bracket who have relatively more or less money, such as the Monopoly experiment where one player was given an intrinsic advantage.
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean
[+] [-] noja|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirrormind|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hwillis|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PhisherPrice|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jerf|8 years ago|reply
You may also be surprised to discover that the "rich asshole" who ducks into the spot in front of you with his Ferrari and then tells you off with his vigorously waving arms decorated with a Rolex could be entirely faking it, actually hip deep in debt and not able to afford what he's waving around. Unsurprisingly such people are often quite stressed. (I don't know "that guy" but I know some people who certainly trend in that direction and I believe would have required only small life pushes to be "that guy".)
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KekDemaga|8 years ago|reply
I'd keep that attitude in check, if you are in a western nation you are likely in the top 1% - 2% in terms of income globally. Things would end pretty badly for you if 98% of the planet decided people like you are evil.
[+] [-] mozumder|8 years ago|reply
Middle-class is definitely the worst. Enough power to be harmful to the poor, but not enough self-awareness of their own situation.
They're the slave-drivers the wealthy use to whip the slaves.
[+] [-] mirrormind|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html