3 ms·

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 wit

by jws 11y ago

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 11y ago
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?

by jws 11y ago

noobermin 11y ago

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?