They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'.
That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you have a totally banal observation.
What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the behavior.
For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum).
So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is $400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.
But is stopping at the light really about avoiding fines? For most people I know, that kind of trafic rule is more about respecting fellow drivers and pedestrians than its about avoiding a monetary penalty.
The only real exception is speed limits because in that case, respecting other people has more to do with keeping the same speed as everyone else than driving under an arbitrary limit.
It is not merely a civil issue it is about safety. If you do not stop in front of those zebra walks when a pedestrian is present you can easily run someone over.
I'm not even sure how they've ruled out that the drivers of the luxury brand cars are simply more likely to be in a rush, living more stressful lives, etc.
And just go straight to - it must be because of wealth inequality that they do these things!
Then they conveniently leave out the difference between minor traffic violations and more serious crimes like rape, murder, etc; and instead talk about how the rich take 2x more candy from children.
Massachusetts drivers are notorious for their bad behavior, enough so that when you cross the border to NH, NH has signs "Drive courteously, it is the New Hampshire Way."
It's better now, but back in the 1980's, "massholes" were famous for driving in the breakdown lane when traffic got tight, often jamming up the breakdown lane as well as all the other lanes.
The signature "masshole", however, is the driver of a rear-wheel drive European car. I remember one time I was driving 495 at 2AM in the morning in heavy rain and heavy traffic with an average speed of about 85 mph. I didn't have enough traction to feel safe driving at that speed, but it didn't seem safe to drive 30 mph less than prevailing traffic either. Then all of a sudden a sports car comes up from behind me and passes me in the breakdown lane at what must have been at least 110 mph.
(At least he didn't get in trouble like the drunk who I saw driving the wrong way in Boston and then hit a police car head on)
From the article, there's "an apparent link between wealth and, well, unseemly behavior", but is that because in some cases, unseemly behavior leads to increased wealth? It's the same old correlation/causation question that doesn't seem to have been looked into.
Did you read the article? They were able to reproduce the effects by making people feel richer, by giving them a leg up in Monopoly, after determining which player would get said leg up by a coin toss. Unless you think participant wealth was substantially impacting that coin toss, they did rule out correlation (and causation in the other direction) being the sole explanation.
From what I read it seems that they controlled for that. Even in the experimental game setting, where both players are just as rich in real life, the player thats richer inside the game starts exibiting those unseemly behaviours.
> But we found consistently with people who were the rich players that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouths full, so they were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person.
Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal, than people who don't take all but one.
In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?
I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?
You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay.
Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified.
Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned.
In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?
Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own.
Devil is right. You're a psychopath, by which I mean that you appear to have not thought about the issue, or you lack many of the "limiting factors" built into ordinary people's senses of decency, morality, and value.
For instance, if I were to rationally maximize my net worth, I would spend 100-hour workweeks at Goldman Sachs becoming King of the Quants. Why don't I do so? Don't I want to be wealthy?
Well, sure, I like being financially secure, but working 100-hour workweeks and being involved in finance capitalism would actually make me so damn miserable I'd want to kill myself. And that's even before we talk about the damage I'd be doing to my closest relationships and the world at large through this "optimal" plan to get rich through genius and hard work!
I can share some observations based on changes in my own life.
I've always considered myself and safe and considerate driver. I'm quite nice to people on the road and I usually stop for pedestrians even though we have no law enforcement in this regard here in India.
I recently bought myself the most expensive locally made bike available here, which also happens to be the biggest and most powerful on the road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw). This also happens to coincide with a change of jobs and a substantial 250% increase in pay, suddenly putting me well into the 0.1% in my city.
Do I stop / slow down for pedestrians less often? Yes.
Do I ignore homeless people and beggars more often? Yes, but I rationalize that by telling myself I don't want to encourage them.
Would I take the candy? No. But I might if they were AWS credits that were being used for entertaining children with games. I might not if they were going to the Khan Academy instead.
Do I feel entitled to all this? Maybe. I do try to be the best at what I do, love programming and spent a lot of time learning to negotiate for what I think my skills are worth. On the flip side I've started to assume that everyone has had the same opportunities and possibilities that I've had, and that if they wanted a better life they should have worked harder for it.
[+] [-] riggins|12 years ago|reply
They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'.
That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you have a totally banal observation.
What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the behavior.
For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum).
So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is $400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.
[+] [-] ufo|12 years ago|reply
The only real exception is speed limits because in that case, respecting other people has more to do with keeping the same speed as everyone else than driving under an arbitrary limit.
[+] [-] hristov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] powertower|12 years ago|reply
And just go straight to - it must be because of wealth inequality that they do these things!
Then they conveniently leave out the difference between minor traffic violations and more serious crimes like rape, murder, etc; and instead talk about how the rich take 2x more candy from children.
[+] [-] PaulHoule|12 years ago|reply
It's better now, but back in the 1980's, "massholes" were famous for driving in the breakdown lane when traffic got tight, often jamming up the breakdown lane as well as all the other lanes.
The signature "masshole", however, is the driver of a rear-wheel drive European car. I remember one time I was driving 495 at 2AM in the morning in heavy rain and heavy traffic with an average speed of about 85 mph. I didn't have enough traction to feel safe driving at that speed, but it didn't seem safe to drive 30 mph less than prevailing traffic either. Then all of a sudden a sports car comes up from behind me and passes me in the breakdown lane at what must have been at least 110 mph.
(At least he didn't get in trouble like the drunk who I saw driving the wrong way in Boston and then hit a police car head on)
[+] [-] gregpilling|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] loceng|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tagawa|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ufo|12 years ago|reply
> But we found consistently with people who were the rich players that they actually started to become, in their behavior, as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels that we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouths full, so they were a little ruder in their behavior to the other person.
[+] [-] eweise|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] abbazabba|12 years ago|reply
Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified. Therefore, if they follow this lifestyle for every decision that comes about, they'll be in some sense richer, or more optimal, than people who don't take all but one.
In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?
I'm curious if anyone thinks this is neither right nor wrong?
[+] [-] rquantz|12 years ago|reply
You seem to be pretty much in line with most of the people commenting here, who largely assume there are methodological problems with the studies rather than accepting the findings that wealth causes moral decay.
Whenever anyone offers "some" amount of anything, candy in this case, is it wrong to take all but one? They're rationally maximizing their holdings within the bounds specified.
Yes, this could account for why that person is wealthier. But it is not moral behavior. Someone who says "the rules do not strictly prohibit me from taking as much candy from the children as I feel like, therefore I will do so" is a cancer on society, someone who takes as much as they can get away with, everyone else be damned.
In other words, anytime the rules are ambiguous, why not test them?
Because there are other people, and you should consider their needs and wants in addition to your own.
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|12 years ago|reply
For instance, if I were to rationally maximize my net worth, I would spend 100-hour workweeks at Goldman Sachs becoming King of the Quants. Why don't I do so? Don't I want to be wealthy?
Well, sure, I like being financially secure, but working 100-hour workweeks and being involved in finance capitalism would actually make me so damn miserable I'd want to kill myself. And that's even before we talk about the damage I'd be doing to my closest relationships and the world at large through this "optimal" plan to get rich through genius and hard work!
[+] [-] sudhirj|12 years ago|reply
I've always considered myself and safe and considerate driver. I'm quite nice to people on the road and I usually stop for pedestrians even though we have no law enforcement in this regard here in India.
I recently bought myself the most expensive locally made bike available here, which also happens to be the biggest and most powerful on the road (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKuTFO4wXbw). This also happens to coincide with a change of jobs and a substantial 250% increase in pay, suddenly putting me well into the 0.1% in my city.
Do I stop / slow down for pedestrians less often? Yes.
Do I ignore homeless people and beggars more often? Yes, but I rationalize that by telling myself I don't want to encourage them.
Would I take the candy? No. But I might if they were AWS credits that were being used for entertaining children with games. I might not if they were going to the Khan Academy instead.
Do I feel entitled to all this? Maybe. I do try to be the best at what I do, love programming and spent a lot of time learning to negotiate for what I think my skills are worth. On the flip side I've started to assume that everyone has had the same opportunities and possibilities that I've had, and that if they wanted a better life they should have worked harder for it.
[+] [-] jstanley|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DougN7|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwern|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]