5 ms·

>I know the money is so alluring It's the only motivation. Why do you think wealthy and high income people fight so hard against repaying the society that educ

>I know the money is so alluring It's the only motivation. Why do you think wealthy and high income people fight so hard against repaying the society that educated them and provided the infrastructure to allow their business to flourish?

ineedasername 6y ago
It's because most people want to believe that their success is due to their own specialness rather than some mix of luck and prior circumstances. I forget where it came from-- I thin Warren Buffet but I can't source it now-- but there's a sort of thought experiment or anecdote about this: Give everyone in the US a dollar. Then randomly choose half the country and have them give their dollar to a specific person in the other half. Repeat this process with the remaining people until there's only 340 people that each have a million dollars, then talk to those 340 people: You'll have 340 stories of how they personally overcame the odds and beat out everyone else to become a millionaire
- minikites 6y ago
  Absolutely. There are studies where groups of people were examined while playing "Monopoly", but some players started with a massive money advantage. If (usually when) they won the game, they attributed it to their own skill at the game, not the massive advantage they had at the start. Being wealthy fucks up people's brains.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    People are capable of saying one thing, and thinking another. I do it all the time, mostly for political purposes. There are many times where it is not in my interest to tell others what I really think, and I assume other are also not playing the game with all of their cards showing. I.e. I assume people know the role luck plays in life, but are also not interested in the consequences of acknowledging that, and/or are interested in the consequences of pretending like they deserved it.
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      This is known as preference falsification (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification). It's something interesting to think about. I often try not to falsify my preferences, even if people don't like me because of them.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        A minimal amount is preferred. But at the end of the day, it’s a very good tool to deal with allocation of resources. It’s also the definition of politics. People do it all the time with friends and relatives. You don’t up front tell someone they’re only worth 10 min of your time, or you prefer visiting someone else in your free time. But you make up excuses or stretch some truths to give both parties plausible deniability, which allows everyone to save face. Workplace politics is the same. You have a limited amount of time and energy to devote, so you will have to sacrifice some coworker’s or manager’s priorities for other colleague’s priorities. But you’d be foolish to tell them up front. Enter workplace politics, where you have to figure out whose aligned with who and for what purpose do you can figure out your next move. The more scarce/valuable the resource, the more politics comes into play. And if it gets too scarce/valuable, it will end up in violence/war. Being able to navigate these signals is a crucial factor to succeeding in society, in my opinion.
rufus_foreman 6y ago
>> Why do you think wealthy and high income people fight so hard against repaying the society that educated them and provided the infrastructure to allow their business to flourish? Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Here is a list of the Giving Pledgers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Giving_Pledgers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Giving_Pledgers. They have all committed to giving more than half of their wealth to charity. 5 of the 10 richest Americans are on that list. It amounts to around $1.2 trillion.

ineedasername 6y ago

It's because most people want to believe that their success is due to their own specialness rather than some mix of luck and prior circumstances. I forget where it came from-- I thin Warren Buffet but I can't source it now-- but there's a sort of thought experiment or anecdote about this: Give everyone in the US a dollar. Then randomly choose half the country and have them give their dollar to a specific person in the other half. Repeat this process with the remaining people until there's only 340 people that each have a million dollars, then talk to those 340 people: You'll have 340 stories of how they personally overcame the odds and beat out everyone else to become a millionaire

minikites 6y ago
Absolutely. There are studies where groups of people were examined while playing "Monopoly", but some players started with a massive money advantage. If (usually when) they won the game, they attributed it to their own skill at the game, not the massive advantage they had at the start. Being wealthy fucks up people's brains.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  People are capable of saying one thing, and thinking another. I do it all the time, mostly for political purposes. There are many times where it is not in my interest to tell others what I really think, and I assume other are also not playing the game with all of their cards showing. I.e. I assume people know the role luck plays in life, but are also not interested in the consequences of acknowledging that, and/or are interested in the consequences of pretending like they deserved it.
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    This is known as preference falsification (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification). It's something interesting to think about. I often try not to falsify my preferences, even if people don't like me because of them.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      A minimal amount is preferred. But at the end of the day, it’s a very good tool to deal with allocation of resources. It’s also the definition of politics. People do it all the time with friends and relatives. You don’t up front tell someone they’re only worth 10 min of your time, or you prefer visiting someone else in your free time. But you make up excuses or stretch some truths to give both parties plausible deniability, which allows everyone to save face. Workplace politics is the same. You have a limited amount of time and energy to devote, so you will have to sacrifice some coworker’s or manager’s priorities for other colleague’s priorities. But you’d be foolish to tell them up front. Enter workplace politics, where you have to figure out whose aligned with who and for what purpose do you can figure out your next move. The more scarce/valuable the resource, the more politics comes into play. And if it gets too scarce/valuable, it will end up in violence/war. Being able to navigate these signals is a crucial factor to succeeding in society, in my opinion.

rufus_foreman 6y ago

>> Why do you think wealthy and high income people fight so hard against repaying the society that educated them and provided the infrastructure to allow their business to flourish? Sorry, but I'm not seeing it. Here is a list of the Giving Pledgers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Giving_Pledgers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Giving_Pledgers. They have all committed to giving more than half of their wealth to charity. 5 of the 10 richest Americans are on that list. It amounts to around $1.2 trillion.