6 ms·

Counterpoints: * Correlation is not causation. * Poor people may often remain poor because they are not rational. Charity may not be a rational activity. So p

by swombat 16y ago

Counterpoints: * Correlation is not causation. * Poor people may often remain poor because they are not rational. Charity may not be a rational activity. So perhaps what they were measuring was not selfishness, but rationality. * Being born in a rich family is correlated with a better education, so the point made in the article's last paragraph may be incorrect. * I'm (currently) poor, but I don't think much of most organised charitable activities, or to giving money to homeless people. I think most charities are an utter waste, and giving money to homeless people only gets them buying alcohol and cigarettes. I'll happily give my sandwich to a homeless person on the street though. My suggested figure for "% of salary to donate to charity" is 0%, and will remain 0% for the rest of my life. However, once rich (assuming I get there), I'd be quite happy to devote years of my life to helping people directly (which may involve leveraging financial resources, but not donating money to charities). * Average figures tell us little. What was the distribution? Did 90% of rich people suggest 0% and 10% of them suggested 50%? How did they get to the 2.1% figure? * What kind of social pressure was there when asking people how much they would donate (of their credits, or of their salary)? Social pressure is a huge influence. Here on HN, an open-minded, thoughtful environment, I explain my views on charities above (even though I know I'll get some passionate replies). Sitting in a circle of people I don't know, I might still express these views (because I'm like that..) but most people probably would be wiser and keep those views quiet. * What kind of social pressure was there before? What kind of social pressure did they expect after? Did people give an answer to please the examiner? A lot of holes in this article, I think. Surprising, coming from a quality publication like the Economist.

robryan 16y ago
I agree with the in general 0% donation, unless of course I was actually involved directly as you mention in using the charitable funds. I just don't trust a random charity or even empathise with many of the charitable plights plastered in front of us with advertising (which is a questionable use of donations). I think I would in general have to have a personal involvement to consider giving.
orborde 16y ago
You could read the paper itself. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=psp-2010-14101-001 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pd... It's probably behind a paywall for you, though.
c1sc0 16y ago
"I think most charities are an utter waste" ... More or less of a waste than how our taxes are spent? While there are some awful charities out there, there are plenty who offer detailed oversight of how donations are spent. Those tend to call themselves NGOs however, and whether you support them or not is often a matter of political alignment.
- swombat 16y ago
  I also think taxes are mostly wasted. :-) I don't mind the idea of paying taxes, mind you - I have nothing against the idea of contributing a large portion of one's income to improving the country that one lives in, I just think most government schemes are ridiculously inefficient.
  - fexl 16y ago
    Government schemes are ridiculously inefficient for a simple reason: they take their money by force. This means that they are not financially accountable to anyone. Yes, you can vote in some new bosses, but those are just new people in charge of using force, so nothing fundamental has actually changed. For example, if everyone in my area were forced to shop at a specific grocery store, I'm almost certain that their produce department would suck within a few months. But even if it didn't, I would still object to the use of force for basic moral reasons. I'm not a pragmatist. When you pay taxes, you aren't "contributing" anything. Perhaps you would pay those taxes voluntarily, but that point is moot because you are not given the option of paying them voluntarily. I gladly pay the annual fee for maintaining our private roads up here, so don't mistake me for a miserly free-riding ingrate who wants to use other people's property for free. I'm just saying that when the initiation of force is involved, people are no longer customers who can take their business elsewhere. Inefficiency is a likely outcome of the initial moral offense.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? Oh, the lines of accountability are too indirect? Fine, call your cable company and health insurance company and try demanding some direct accountability. Also, you're free to take your business elsewhere, just live in another first-world country. Oh, they all have higher taxes than the US? Hrm. Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?
barrkel 16y ago
There are a lot of holes in almost every article in mass media publications, as they must necessarily summarize. Whether you notice the holes or not probably depends on how well the article confirms or contradicts your biases, giving you an emotional payoff to finding the holes - or avoiding finding them.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
tomjen3 16y ago
I don't disagree with you that most charities are a waste, but that is because they focus on what I call eat a fish assistance, such as providing food, vaccinations, etc which only temporarily improve the conditions for those they are trying to help. On the other hand there are a few charities that do work to permanently improve the conditions for those they were supposed to help (teach fishing charities) these are most certainly not a waste of time or money to support (alot of Amnestys work would fall into this catagory).
scotty79 16y ago
> In this case the change intended was to that of a higher or lower social class than the individual perceived he normally belonged to. The researchers then asked participants to indicate what percentage of a person’s income should be spent on charitable donations. They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity. Perhaps this paragraph can plug first few of your perceived holes.
joshuacc 16y ago
"Charity may not be a rational activity. So perhaps what they were measuring was not selfishness, but rationality." What grounds do you have for thinking that charity (and presumably altruism in general) is irrational? Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational?
- dminor 16y ago
  > Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational? That's pretty much the definition of "rational" as it is applied in Economics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
  - isleyaardvark 16y ago
    There could be an element of self-interest in poor people's support for charity: > They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity. They could on some level see themselves as beneficiaries of charity, and be more charity-minded themselves to avoid cognitive dissonance.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    Indeed but "economic rationality" is a narrow subset of rationality as a whole. And the lines I quoted above seemed to imply that charity is irrational, not just "economically irrational."
    - billybob 16y ago
      Agreed - "economic rationality" is an extremely narrow concept. As an example, it's "rational" to buy yourself a car or an ice cream cone, because you get utility or enjoyment out of it. It's "irrational" to give money to others, because... you don't get enjoyment out of it? Wait, what if you do? A giant problem with the definition, methinks.
      - 16y ago
electronvolt 16y ago
Even a correlation between higher incomes and lower rates of altruism is interesting. The whole rationality/lack thereof may actually be the case (at least from my personal experiences working in lower end jobs, where the people were either older and, frankly, not particularly smart, or younger, smarter, and temporary). Does the fact that it could be considered irrational invalidate any value of the altruism? I was most interested in the last part, where they were seeing if people would help another person who was right in front of them. It shows something more about simple compassion, which I consider different from altruism. It also helps address your point about organized charitable activities: it was an opportunity to give what would have been perceived as help someone more in the here and now and less in the airy "well, this seems like a good percentage of my income to donate to charity...".
tallanvor 16y ago
No, correlation is not causation. However, the article noted that when a participant was lead to believe they were higher or lower on the social ladder, that changed the amounts they gave or believed was right to give. --This doesn't prove causation of course, but it does suggest with some strength that a higher perceived social position does affect your decisions when it comes to charity. One last thought... You may consider yourself poor, but you don't know the scales they used in the experiment. It's possible that you aren't as poor as you think.
Gormo 16y ago
Also, poorer people are probably more likely to imagine themselves as recipients of charity rather than its providers, in which case the exact same self-interest motivation would move the answers of rich and poor in opposite directions.
- timwiseman 16y ago
  I think that depends on your definition of poor, which is sadly left vague in this article. If by poor you mean paupers and the truly destitute that are homeless or avoiding that fate only by government handouts/charity then I suspect you are certainly right. If by poor you mean what some refer to as the "working poor" or people only slighly above the working poor on the economic ladder, then my admittedly limited and admittedly anecdotal experience would contradict it. They tend to be hard working, generous with what little they have, and would be insulted by most suggestions of charity (though I have known a couple to take loans from friends to be paid back when they were able...) In short, my limited and anecdotal experience tends to support the concept in the article that the lower and working classes tend to be generous and helpful.
jbooth 16y ago
"giving money to homeless people only gets them buying alcohol and cigarettes" So what were you going to spend that .50 cents on?

by swombat 16y ago

robryan 16y ago

I agree with the in general 0% donation, unless of course I was actually involved directly as you mention in using the charitable funds. I just don't trust a random charity or even empathise with many of the charitable plights plastered in front of us with advertising (which is a questionable use of donations). I think I would in general have to have a personal involvement to consider giving.

orborde 16y ago

You could read the paper itself. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=psp-2010-14101-001 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pd... It's probably behind a paywall for you, though.

c1sc0 16y ago

"I think most charities are an utter waste" ... More or less of a waste than how our taxes are spent? While there are some awful charities out there, there are plenty who offer detailed oversight of how donations are spent. Those tend to call themselves NGOs however, and whether you support them or not is often a matter of political alignment.

swombat 16y ago
I also think taxes are mostly wasted. :-) I don't mind the idea of paying taxes, mind you - I have nothing against the idea of contributing a large portion of one's income to improving the country that one lives in, I just think most government schemes are ridiculously inefficient.
- fexl 16y ago
  Government schemes are ridiculously inefficient for a simple reason: they take their money by force. This means that they are not financially accountable to anyone. Yes, you can vote in some new bosses, but those are just new people in charge of using force, so nothing fundamental has actually changed. For example, if everyone in my area were forced to shop at a specific grocery store, I'm almost certain that their produce department would suck within a few months. But even if it didn't, I would still object to the use of force for basic moral reasons. I'm not a pragmatist. When you pay taxes, you aren't "contributing" anything. Perhaps you would pay those taxes voluntarily, but that point is moot because you are not given the option of paying them voluntarily. I gladly pay the annual fee for maintaining our private roads up here, so don't mistake me for a miserly free-riding ingrate who wants to use other people's property for free. I'm just saying that when the initiation of force is involved, people are no longer customers who can take their business elsewhere. Inefficiency is a likely outcome of the initial moral offense.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Of course they're accountable. Ever heard of a little thing called democracy? Oh, the lines of accountability are too indirect? Fine, call your cable company and health insurance company and try demanding some direct accountability. Also, you're free to take your business elsewhere, just live in another first-world country. Oh, they all have higher taxes than the US? Hrm. Too bad you're not running things, then we could clear all this inefficiency right up. What's your budget plan?

barrkel 16y ago

There are a lot of holes in almost every article in mass media publications, as they must necessarily summarize. Whether you notice the holes or not probably depends on how well the article confirms or contradicts your biases, giving you an emotional payoff to finding the holes - or avoiding finding them.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

tomjen3 16y ago

I don't disagree with you that most charities are a waste, but that is because they focus on what I call eat a fish assistance, such as providing food, vaccinations, etc which only temporarily improve the conditions for those they are trying to help. On the other hand there are a few charities that do work to permanently improve the conditions for those they were supposed to help (teach fishing charities) these are most certainly not a waste of time or money to support (alot of Amnestys work would fall into this catagory).

scotty79 16y ago

> In this case the change intended was to that of a higher or lower social class than the individual perceived he normally belonged to. The researchers then asked participants to indicate what percentage of a person’s income should be spent on charitable donations. They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity. Perhaps this paragraph can plug first few of your perceived holes.

joshuacc 16y ago

"Charity may not be a rational activity. So perhaps what they were measuring was not selfishness, but rationality." What grounds do you have for thinking that charity (and presumably altruism in general) is irrational? Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational?

dminor 16y ago
> Are you assuming that only self-interested actions can be rational? That's pretty much the definition of "rational" as it is applied in Economics. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory
- isleyaardvark 16y ago
  There could be an element of self-interest in poor people's support for charity: > They found that both real lower-class participants and those temporarily induced to rank themselves as lower class felt that a greater share of a person’s salary should be used to support charity. They could on some level see themselves as beneficiaries of charity, and be more charity-minded themselves to avoid cognitive dissonance.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  Indeed but "economic rationality" is a narrow subset of rationality as a whole. And the lines I quoted above seemed to imply that charity is irrational, not just "economically irrational."
  - billybob 16y ago
    Agreed - "economic rationality" is an extremely narrow concept. As an example, it's "rational" to buy yourself a car or an ice cream cone, because you get utility or enjoyment out of it. It's "irrational" to give money to others, because... you don't get enjoyment out of it? Wait, what if you do? A giant problem with the definition, methinks.
    - 16y ago

electronvolt 16y ago

Even a correlation between higher incomes and lower rates of altruism is interesting. The whole rationality/lack thereof may actually be the case (at least from my personal experiences working in lower end jobs, where the people were either older and, frankly, not particularly smart, or younger, smarter, and temporary). Does the fact that it could be considered irrational invalidate any value of the altruism? I was most interested in the last part, where they were seeing if people would help another person who was right in front of them. It shows something more about simple compassion, which I consider different from altruism. It also helps address your point about organized charitable activities: it was an opportunity to give what would have been perceived as help someone more in the here and now and less in the airy "well, this seems like a good percentage of my income to donate to charity...".

tallanvor 16y ago

No, correlation is not causation. However, the article noted that when a participant was lead to believe they were higher or lower on the social ladder, that changed the amounts they gave or believed was right to give. --This doesn't prove causation of course, but it does suggest with some strength that a higher perceived social position does affect your decisions when it comes to charity. One last thought... You may consider yourself poor, but you don't know the scales they used in the experiment. It's possible that you aren't as poor as you think.

Gormo 16y ago

Also, poorer people are probably more likely to imagine themselves as recipients of charity rather than its providers, in which case the exact same self-interest motivation would move the answers of rich and poor in opposite directions.

timwiseman 16y ago
I think that depends on your definition of poor, which is sadly left vague in this article. If by poor you mean paupers and the truly destitute that are homeless or avoiding that fate only by government handouts/charity then I suspect you are certainly right. If by poor you mean what some refer to as the "working poor" or people only slighly above the working poor on the economic ladder, then my admittedly limited and admittedly anecdotal experience would contradict it. They tend to be hard working, generous with what little they have, and would be insulted by most suggestions of charity (though I have known a couple to take loans from friends to be paid back when they were able...) In short, my limited and anecdotal experience tends to support the concept in the article that the lower and working classes tend to be generous and helpful.

jbooth 16y ago

"giving money to homeless people only gets them buying alcohol and cigarettes" So what were you going to spend that .50 cents on?