E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhile the poor might seem to have the most reason to cheat and steal, the rich are more likely to be dishonest, a new study shows.
In a series of experiments, University of California at Berkeley researchers showed again and again that upper-class individuals were more prone to unethical behavior than people from more deprived backgrounds, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Paul Piff, a doctoral candidate and the study's lead author, says he was surprised at how little incentive it took to get high-income people to cheat.
In one study, for example, people were asked to play a game of chance online. The 195 volunteers were told that a die would be rolled for them five times and that the participants with the highest scores from the five rolls would get more credits toward a drawing for a $50 Amazon.com certificate. The researchers also told the volunteers to keep track of their own scores.
But Piff and his colleagues had designed the game so all players would end up with a score of 12. As it turns out, “the upper socio-economic status people were way more likely to report a score above 12,” says Piff.
“It was fairly remarkable," he added. " You wouldn’t think that people reporting incomes of $150,000 per year would be so motivated to win this prize.”
In another study, the researchers asked 108 volunteers to fill out a survey online. Along with questions about their backgrounds, the volunteers were asked to imagine that they were employers who needed to hire someone at the lowest salary possible. In the hypothetical, they would get a bonus if they negotiated a low enough salary. The job was one that would last just six months.
Then they were asked what they would do if a candidate came in who was willing to work for less if he could be guaranteed the job would last two years. “Thus, if participants (acting as employers) were honest about the six-month limit of the job, chances are they wouldn’t be able to negotiate a very low salary,” Piff says.
In this scenario, the wealthier participants were more likely to act unethically to get a reward.
Piff suspects that a combination of factors, including greed and a heightened sense of entitlement, are what spur the wealthy to cheat.
He got the idea for the study watching people cut others off at a four-way intersection. His sense was that the most aggressive drivers were the ones with the most expensive cars. To test this, his first experiment tabulated the behavior of 274 drivers at that same intersection. Sure enough, drivers of expensive cars were the most likely to cut others off, he found.
In a second, related, experiment, Piff and his colleagues again watched drivers -- this time to see whether people with expensive vehicles were more likely to breeze past pedestrians in a crosswalk. In California, vehicles are supposed to yield when someone is in the crosswalk.
Once again, drivers of expensive cars were more likely to behave badly.
While there are examples of rich people who are especially generous -- think Warren Buffet and Bill Gates -- money seems to have a deleterious effect on ethics in most cases, Piff says.
The solution? He suggests mandatory ethics classes for people studying economics and business.
Related:
Hefty wager: Lose weight or lose your money
Dudes say 'I love you first,' study finds
Leave a Comment:
Of course they are more likely to be dishonest. Most rich people get rich via dishonesty. Most poor people get poor via trying to live an honest life. This does not surprise me at all. The rich also consider themselves and their loved ones to be somehow magically more special than anyone else, and this is despite the reality that all humans are born with an equal innate value that cannot be measured by money.
Morlack, agreed. Throughout my corporate career, the higher I went, the more cheating I witnessed. The higher I got, the more I was actually criticized for "my stubborn ethics". The higher I got, the more "ethics" was associated with "stupidity"... "everyone cheats., you fool!"
So as I look to our political leaders and see much the same attitudes, it's not a matter of whether they cheat or not, it's just how much.
Those motivated most by money and power seem to be the biggest cheaters, at least in my experience.
LMarcT: My experience as well. In essence one has to have sufficient greed/self ambition to permit onself to subjugate one's own ethical/principle base - in effect prostituting oneself. In my experience typically less than 10% of people remain true to their belief set. Not a nice reflection on general human strength of character - and presumably why we have the institutionally corrupt setup we now have.
Its called Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and I have never met a rich person that did not suffer from this.
It's the secret they don't teach in college by design. Survival of the fittest. Only when you show "it", do you get invited into the "social climbers" club, and begin the networking that teaches and curbs you into a selfish a-hole. Through lying, cheating, stealing, and other unethical and immoral practices, the group finally owns most everything, then they start feeding on each other like vultures until one is left. Fortunately, moralistic and ethical human nature from everyone else has historically shown to rise up and overthrow the elitists, taking back what was stolen and manipulated from them. Bullies thrive for a short time, but ultimately get their comeuppance.
Rich people are more likely to cheat? Really? They needed a study to find this out? How much did this study cost? This is right there with the poll that came out a few days ago that said "Marijuana makes people less motivated" in being a waste of money to prove what is commonly known. What a waste!
And because they are entitled to their riches, you will find them whining about entitlement programs into which they are exempt from paying.
They didn't have to do no research to find that out.
When your RICH you want more..GREED...always been this way!
example: Romney with almost half a $BILLION$..and had one of those Swiss bank accounts under investigation..tax envisionreasons...He closed that account fast after they started investigating
Oh, my bubble is burst.
I really thought these people were the "job creators".
Sadder but wiser, I go back to work, paying the Social Security and Medicare taxes that they never pay.
THIS is news? They want it NOW - they want it FIRST - they are absolutely ENTITLED - they want it FREE. I've stood in an airport listening to a guy, led a fortune 100 company - he couldn't get it thru his head - plane was sold out - he expected someone in first class to be kicked off so he could fly. What did they mean they couldn't kick someone off. They don't give a rip on the how, what or why. Toss in they generally suffer from what I call 'SS' - Selective Stupidity - can't do anything for themselves. What....don't you know who I am?? Conspicuious consumption .
Oh give me a break! Could we expect anything else from a Cal Berkeley study? Go visit circuit court or the nearest prison and see who's really cheating and stealing.
And just listen to the whining comments from the have nots who never will....Obama's class envy campaign is getting to you guys. Pathetic.
Martha Stewart comes to mind.
Remember just 1% of the nation has the most money and they spend time in a cell-if caught..common sense there be more poorer people in prisons.
I have seen it many times in my half century plus, the sense of entitlement, of privilege makes many (not all) behave badly.
spider-737231....You really don't get it do you ? Those courts and jails only show you who got caught and who got punished, that has nothing to do with who is doing the most and biggest cheating and stealing.
Reliant...agree 100% That sense of entitlement seems to take over pretty quickly. Many ( not all ) people who inherit or win large sums of money quickly catch the entitlement bug. Athletes and media stars also catch it pretty quickly too !
@spider...Huh?? "Go visit circuit court or the nearest prison and see who's really cheating and stealing."
Here's that break you were asking for. The whining comments you mention are coming from the rich who have very expensive attorneys on staff for 'such occasions.' They buy their way out of issues. If convicted - very few serve - if they do - gives them just enough time to powder their noses for those photos.
And the conservatives want everyone to believe its the poor with the heightened sense of entitlement.
When wealth becomes an important aspect of self-worth cheating is bound to be more likely.
don henley said it best: "a man with a briefcase can steal more money than any man with a gun."
Spider... Your comment brings to mind a quote I heard... "some believe that the rich are above the law when, in fact, there is NO law for the wealthy". Not sure if I have it right but you get the gist. I think that this quote is partly correct due to the fact that all of the financial wizards who created the risky mortgage vehicles (aka CDO & CDS) not to mention robo-signing are NOT in jail even though they basically destroyed the economy. In addition, the wealthy have access to better lawyers and can outspend the DA's office (burying them in legal documents) and thus forcing settlements that require no admission of guilt or fault (corporations use this extensively).
Oh Spider. What a simpleton. Of course the prisons and courts have a disproportionate amount of the "have nots". Who do you think has the power and influenceto stay out of the courts and thereby stay out of jail. Who do you think pays the politicians to write the laws that allow the loop holes that the expensive lawyers use to keep their butts out of jail. And your comments about Berkeley are just asinine. It's one of the highest rated universities in the world. Or are you one of those Santorum kind of guys who don't trust people with collage educations.
The wealthiest people I know have never owned a new car. They've purchased one house and have never moved. They have created things, patented them, and held onto the patent. They've held onto their money in good times and bought wisely in tough times. They have never gone for the quick buck. If they wanted the money to go more than one generation, they have invested in education and little else. Rarely does family money go more than five generations. We are third/fourth generation on the Kennedys and we are seeing them flounder.
I have no idea if the old money paid their taxes or not, but they certainly didn't live beyond their means. I think this article has the nouveau riche or non-rich in mind. $150,000/year is certainly not rich! I've never made more than $60,000/year and I don't consider these people rich. It's more a matter of how they spend their money than how they make it. How do you measure yourself? If you make $150,000/year and have two children, are you wealthy compared to the individual without two children who makes $30,000/year?
This article is ridiculous. If you survey inscrupulous reporters, I bet the cheaters come out at the highest paying publishers. It is designed to reflect what they want it to reflect.
@ Lee - I am glad for you and I appreciate your experience. I have run into very few of your example.
I've worked for very high level execs - they nickel and dime the day-to-day worker/health care/pension etc. all the while their base earning far exceeds that of President Obama. Yes, I said base. New houses, buy perfectly nice homes - gut them for bigger, better, newer. Golf games out the wazooo - expensed, of course - business, of course. They will nickel and dime that coffee they purchase and woah be it when it is missed on their expense report. More time is spend with the 'wealth management team' than just about anyone else - short of their tax advisors. Their health plans put the politicians to shame not to mention the stock options. They race to share what kind of new car they drive. Call them nouveau rich if you must.
Mom had a saying - don't ever forget your character. Strip down at night, it's all you got - make sure you like the face staring back at you. It is the truly classy person who has it and knows you don't need to show it.
Would this survey encourage the Koch brothers to don their old school uniforms and enrol at a neighborhood school for some ethics classes? Just askin'.
Rich people who aren't motivated by greed are the minority--at least among businessmen, politicians, and lawyers.
My family was very wealthy as I grew up. Now that I look back I realize the cheating, scamming and dishonesty that went on by the wealthiest people (one of whom dishonestly cheated my Dad out of millions of Dollars through fraudulent documents). They hide money off-shore, cheat on taxes and bamboozle old relatives for their estates and then act like they "made" the money for themselves. They give money, sure, to the organizations they patronize, the opera, symphony, theatres, basically the places the ordinary folk can hardly afford to go. The more money the have, the worse their attitude is towards the poor. They classify them as losers and deadbeats becasue they do not drive good enough cars, wear designer clothes and live in the best neighborhoods. We poorer folk are the "beer and pretzels" crowd. If they are being nice to you they a) want something from you or b) want to talk about you later in the most scathing terms. It's disgusting .Of course, there are the few, very few, exceptions.
150000 is rich.....WHAT?????? MAybe to oba-mao, at least that is what he wants stupid people to believe; and his crony supporters here in the liberal media and those morons at berkley.
What a freaking joke!
And using buffet and gates as examples of good rich folks...........because they profess to hold liberal causes close to their hearts, oh bless them, they are good decent rich; not those nasty republicans making 150K a year CHEATERS......what a bunch of HOG MANURE!
The only reason buffet and gates are liberals is b/c it is the CHEAPEST PR campaign they can buy.
It makes stupid liberals sing their praises like the moronic biased article authors of this BS! And all they have to do is act like they vote for liberals, keep in mind they can afford to pay any taxes and it has little to no affect on them after their football team of tax accountants and tax lawyers work out their INSIDE deals with oba-mao to exempt them and oprah/spielberg/etc from the SCAMS and the media liars promote them as gods in return.
The stupidity of the idiots in this country make me want to PUKE!
Vote for oba-mao- and then blame bush when your kids are forced to learn the new national language----MANDARIN!
Tell us something we didn't know. And the rich are always suspecting the poor of thievery (partly due to their guilty conscience).
Leave it to MSNBC to leave out the obvious situational considerations and instead try to attribute behavior solely to some inherent personal difference... as if a rich person who became poor would still cheat and a poor person would never cheat after acquiring a fortune.
""We're not saying you should distrust the rich, or the rich are corrupt," says Piff. "Instead, this highlights the disparities in social environments -- that different positions occupied give rise to almost natural tendencies and divergent social values."
What accounts for this divergence? The independence offered by financial security may foster a sense of entitlement and a lack of concern for others, the authors suggest. On a more concrete level, affluent people may be more likely to get away with misbehavior (because they are less supervised at work, for example), and they may be more willing to take ethical risks because they have the resources to bail themselves out -- both literally and figuratively -- if they get caught."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/27/health/rich-more-unethical/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
It all comes down to a sense of entitlement that they get. What do you call consistently raising the taxes on the middle class, while slashing their own taxes to pay for their wars? Its called a huge federal deficit and war is by far the biggest contributor to the federal deficit.
Balzac: Behind every great fortune is a great crime.
Lee-733154--I take it, then, that you do not know many (if any) well-to-do people.
As for those complaining about the use of the term "rich" for those who earn over $150K, that is the reporter's doing. The study itself uses the term "wealthier" (which only means that they are at the top end) and "upper class." Both those terms are fine for those making $150K or more, as that is where the bottom of the upper 10% (the affluent) is set.
A person whose household makes $150K is making three times the average income for a family in the US. Yes, such a person with two children is wealthy in comparison to a single person making $30K. It is foolish to suggest that such a person does not--a family with two wage earners making $150K total goes in together to buy a house, to share child-caring responsibilities, and so forth. The single person must pay for his/her lodging by him/herself and has little, if any, spare cash to put away for a rainy day.
Most people who make $150K are "struggling" due to self-imposed difficulties. One fellow I knew complained that a single mother who was the sole support of her child could get Pell Grants, but his son (from his first wife--he had custody) could not get one because he and his second wife made "too much money." His argument was that he had to pay for childcare and car insurance and mortgage just like the single mother. He said this while on vacation in the Carribbean, the second such vacation he had taken that year--a vacation which cost about as much as the single mother got in Pell Grants.
While an affluent person is not precisely "rich"--that person does have many benefits that a poorer person does not. That person can choose to buy a nice car or a more affordable one; choose to live in a home that is modest or one that flaunts his/her income; choose go on vacations to the Carribbean or on a more affordable one at a nearby US location; choose to help others or only him/herself. That the affluent persons make extremely poor decisions which cause them to struggle with their finances is the point--when the ultrarich talk about people making "bad choices" that "keep them poor," I assure you that they are thinking of the upper middle class and affluent who stick at the level of upper-middle class or affluence and don't move up. A person with "only" 7 million dollars in assets is considered "poor" by such people.
The "wealthier" people in this study were not the ultra rich--it is quite likely that the ultra rich simply did not play the game or would have thought it a silly waste of time. We are not told how people were sampled--and $150K appears to be the uppermost reaches for their study (that's two accountants, a lawyer and a mid-level executive--people who are not "rich"). As for the ultra rich, they might not even be able to care about a $50 gift certificate or to care about moving up from a job as an interviewer--it would probably be too foreign a concept for them.
The people we are looking at are those who know that they are not ultra rich and who are barely in that "elite" upper bracket. Such people tend to defend the borders viciously, lest they slip over and become one of the unwashed. This tells us more about the affluent (those who claim to be "middle class" but are not) than it tells us about the "rich."
Jan - what a load of BS. When have taxes been consistently raised on the middle class. Oh never mind that those Bush tax cuts benefited the lower and middle class the most. Grow up already.
@ jac.... The Reid Report...
http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/08/who-benefits-from-the-bush-tax-cuts/
Who benefits from the Bush tax cuts?
August 24, 2010 · Posted in News and Current Affairs, Political News, The Economy
The top 2 percent of income earners benefited overwhelmingly from the Bush tax cuts.
The Bush tax cuts were a pretty sweet deal for the richest Americans, but not so much for average families. An explanation, from the Joint Committee on Taxation:
...and there you have it Jac. Grow up already.
What a ridiculous assertion, Morlack. The overwhelming majority of poor people don't occupy their station because of honesty. They're poor because they repeatedly make stupid decisions regarding their money, their time and their lives.
p.s. The fact this comes out of Beserkely makes me want to reserve judgement until I read the PNAS article. Too bad I don't want to waste my time doing so...
While it may be true, and I myself have seen much personal anecdotal evidence to support the contention, rich people often are greedy and underhanded. However, some of the evidence referenced in this piece to support their findings is laughable. I'm well-off enough myself that I simply would not bother to participate in their game for an Amazon gift certificate for $50. How do they control for that? What they are really testing is how much do people cheat that are "wealthy" and still willing to participate for a relatively insignificant reward? No wonder they find so many cheaters in that group... many are probably pathological and can't resist the temptation to snatch any $$$ they see just out of a compulsion to behave that way.
The other so-called study asked 108 "volunteers" to fill out a survey online. What? No way I'd do any of that for a few bucks and certainly not "online" when it involved "background questions" and other complex tasks. Not to mention 108 is a pretty slim sampling to draw conclusions with any decent margin of error especially considering the multiple tiers of "wealthy" that are included when starting at a modest $150k income. Sorry, but another reference to something with dubious conclusions.
Finally, the idea that rich people cutting off others in traffic is somehow a result of a greater character flaw (in the conclusions this is equated with more likely to cheat) seems like a big leap. I personally own a very nice car with over 500hp and I can assure you I cut people off because I just can't resist driving the car like the race car it actually is. Sorry, it's just human nature to want to drive that car fast... I bet you $50 you would dive the same way if I gave the car to you! And no, I don't cheat, steal or crush little people beneath my boots for a buck!
So, while clearly many rich people are greedy bastards this article makes a really weak case showing how wealth is directly proportional to greed and cheating.
This study applies directly to the majority of the members of Congress.
I can't believe these comments were collapsed. Sometimes the truth hurts but he spoke the truth.
Wealthy "One-Percenters," have a tendency to be more dishonest and more unethical than compared to the rest of us.
...Just as I've suspected.
This is news? Of course... rules don't apply to the rich.... unless they are "their rules"...
insider trading... illegal.
insider trading (in congress?)... HEYYYY! WHAT'S ALL THIS INSIDER TRADING TALK? C'MON!
to whomever wrote this ....duh. And there was actually a study. like people were paid for this info? really? wh-oww. money for study should have been used for kids with anything horrible or just hungry ones. fck these "studies"!
Pity them their karma/consequences of their actions and money: The more money one has, the worse their karma/future will be (and one only has to look into the news to see that karma is ruthless and does not spare anyone).
None of them will escape their fate/future, and their fate is more horrible than all of you can imagine. I'm terrified every day and every night of karma and I don't have any money, so you can imagine the horror and terror that awaits millionaires; even I can't imagine what the billionaires are going to suffer/endure to learn before they have honor, courage, and decency.
*** Poor, poor b.gates and all those like him. ***
you fckn RINO's collapsed morlacks comment...you people ARE the problem way worse than the rich getting richer off of others hard labor. YOU ARE the enablers and a-holes!But on the next plane you will all see the truth and pay for your deeds. Have fun going down a notch. being rich doesn't make you bad. bieng greedy does.
Guess this study proves why I am so damned honest......
I don't believe this study. Everyone knows that rich people get rich by working hard. Like Al Capone. And Bernie Madoff. And...well, if I listed them all, I'd blow out MSNBC's/Newsvine memory. Suffice to say, we all know that rich people are highly moral and ethical. Yeah, right.
Duh....really? Wow lets just take a look at our elitest elected officials, in addition to the so called millionaires out there....our elected officials exempt themselves from all the laws they pass that we have to follow. Insider trading is just one of the laws that we can go to jail for if we participate in. Look at Martha Stewart. They are becoming millionaires by cashing in on insider trading info that we aren't privy too and I bet they don't pay taxes on all the wealth they create for themselves.
Well, another puff-piece to fuel the flames of class warfare...good job. Now, howcome the article didn't mention the spate of 'younguns' who have been flash mobbing, beating the crap out of transgenders and other non-ghetto folk, beating old people and veterans and nearly killing them? Can't go there, not PC or falling in with the current agenda espoused by the administration?
As to likely to be dishonest, how on earth can they dig up the truth? By asking questions like "Say, Mr. Rich guy, you a lying cheat? "
Berkeley? This piece shows progressive Professors are the worlds biggest Liars (see Global Warming)
Somehow, this study doesn't surprise me, given that previous studies have shown that the working poor are more likely than the wealthier to repay what they owe when they can (as they know what it's like to need the money) and more likely to give a higher percentage of their income to charity - and they don't do it for the tax breaks, but because they empathise and want to help people they see as even in greater need than themselves. You can also see that the wealthy are more terrified of losing money than those that are often much closer to the edge. It wasn't the poor killing themselves in 1929 - it was the rich, who just couldn't cope with the idea of starting over from the place most people were living to begin with
Screw the rules, I have money!
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
1. You go to the capital of vanity and greed in this country, if not for the entire planet, California.
2. You pick a few people at random to conduct a study on greed.
3. You reach the conclusion that some well off people are greedy.
Of course, this article does not mention the rate of well off individuals that cheated, giving off the impression that practically all of them cheated. However, if you side with Democrats, like the two billionaires that the article mentions, then, they are okay, implying that if you are rich and disagree with Democrats, you are dishonest and a thief.
Most of the people that I have met in my life are in the middle and lower classes. Let me tell you something, there is just as much greed, envy and dishonesty at these levels of society.
The problem here is the defeatist attitudes and ideological shackles. No one with power relies on ethics to defend it . You want rich people to play by your rules then back them up in the material world not the abstract ethical babble. When someone gives you the whole life isn't fair rundown, then why not show them just how right they are? For godsakes stop bitching and crying though.
I can't believe these comments were collapsed. Sometimes the truth hurts but he spoke the truth.
Oh My - Say is isn't so. Duh. And a lot of these rich people are bosses who have no ethics and treat their employees like crap. But they do because they can. Ah, what a great country we have become.
Give them a tax break.
Certainly some folks became rich after working hard, being honest and treating everyone in their affairs ethically. But many of the rest of them have created a lot of economic, political and social suffering to fatten their wallets and accumulate wealth. I totally get that so many people are getting out in the streets, some chanting, some singing, why occupy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49z3cheFN20
Sure................... and everyone on welfare, food stamps, and disability are 100% honest.
My guess is most of these "rich" people were movie stars, athletes and media elites. A businessman would have a hard time succeeding if he cheated his customers or lied to them. So, the bottom line is that rich liberals are way more likely to be morally challenged than a conservative businessman. I didn't even need to do a study to figure this out.
AMAZING how conservatives draw concrete conclusions from "GUESSES".
So all the rich folks working Wall Street are liberals too? Rupert Murdoch is a liberal??
Movie stars, professional athletes are NOT "rich", the people who sign their paychecks ARE.
You just keep on GUESSING there fella.
Wow. Have you worked for corporate America? A lot (I won't say all) of corporate higher ups do get these bonuses for keeping salaries low, and will do anything to get those bonuses. I have seen this all too often...the reason the businesses still succeed is because their employees (that they walk all over) still take care of their customers or patients and don't let it affect their care. (YES! This happens in the medical world as well!)
You are just willfully ignorant!
I was thinking the same thing Purple Turtle! Plenty of businessmen/women cheat. That is why customer service at most places are crap (unless you do happen to get the nice one) and everything is so dang expensive.
Actually I think the scientists got this one backward. It's not that rich people are more likely to cheat, it's that cheaters are more likely to get rich. It's the same thing in many ways but their conclusion doesn't present a solution. If we as a society would stop rewarding bad behavior then the trend would move the other way. As long as we continue to allow crap like reality shock TV to govern our behavior this is what we'll have. What else can we expect when the lessons we teach to our youngsters is that if they act like jerks and maybe get pregnant while a minor they might get their own TV show? Especially now that more and more often the TV is the babysitter of choice.
Lukewarm, I don't think it really matters whether or not your liberal or conservative, there are bad people in every group. Also, a businessman doesn't have to cheat his customers. He can cheat his employees, competitors, and/or the system. He wouldn't want hurt his customers, that would be stupid.
Though the banks had no problem hurting their customers prior to the economic crisis, so I guess not everyone sees it that way.
If anything you have it backwards. Businessman are the ones who are inclined towards cheating whereas the groups you mentioned are more likely to not cheat. Businessmen tend to be the children of other businessmen, those groups you mentioned are more likely to be children of lesser incomes. As this study shows, the lower incomes are less likely to cheat ergo my conclusion that you have it backwards.
Luke you must be watching a totally different picture. The corporate America I have been involved with is a very cutthroat operation. "Dog eat dog" comes to mind. Most higher-ups in corporations are consumed with protecting their own turf...at any cost. Underlings simply grin and bear it. I'm not at all surprised by the results of the study (done by a doctoral student) at this excellent university.
I never met any dumba$$es at UC Berkeley...
I think that the affluent are more likely to act dishonestly because as a group, they are less religious than the poor. Many poor and lower-middle-class people are devoutly religious and believe that God will judge their actions after they die. Whereas many affluent people are secular and don't believe in Heaven or hell. If they believe there is no omniscient God who will judge them after death, of course they are more likely to act unethically. I'd be willing to bet that if the researchers compared people of the same religiosity level but different incomes. there would be a much less of a difference between the poor and the rich.
Movie stars have no real incentive to cheat, as it doesn't get them significantly more cash. Businesspeople, on the other hand, have lots of reason to cheat, at least after they become rich. You see, once you're rich enough, you're legally untouchable (for the most part at least) so you're unlikely to be caught cheating. In the meantime, cheating gets you more money.
This is by far the most amusing post I've read on the internet today -- congratulations!
Haliburton? Newt? Banks and mortgage companies? WALL STREET, FOR CHRISSAKES? Bastions of honesty.
LOL
Crimson Wife-How does that equate with Santorum being considered one of the most corrupt members of congress during his time?
The Catholic church historically has been one of the most corrupt to ever exist. They have committed acts of atrocities that are unimaginable.
oh see you are uh ..dumb. liberal instant billionaires like gates that give 100's of millions to charities. and movie stars that became rich from being good looking or talented. are waaay different from the likes of romney who got rich from firing people and closing companies or big gas/oil that got rich from polluting our delicate balance. you know....the planet/mother earth . but keep on with your stupidity. Yuo will pay on the next plane. we are all on steps to enlightenment .
Really? How many corporations hire these snake-oil salesmen as their CEO"s because they promise to make tons of money for the right now by screwing employees and customers, and when right now passes and the companies go close to, or into, bankruptcy, these CEO's are "let go" with multi-million dollar golden parachutes? And then the process is repeated over again. The way the wealthy businessmen make money is by cheating customers and lying to them. That's the corporatist way.
Hmmm. That doesn't explain my ex-wife. Perhaps she's the exception that proves the rule..
Is she "hot and naughty"?
Well, given that she's now menopausal, she's probably hot (all the time).
Gumps, nice return fire!
Mehehehe Gumps
I'm with marlock ? is she?
WOW, this sure puts a twist on what the GOP tries to define as "the entitlement class". LOL
Definitely. I'd be considered poor but I want nothing more than a chance to be independent and support myself. Many of the richer kids at my college are often skipping class and asking for other people's notes, asking for private extra credit opportunities when they miss a lot of work, and acting like the Professor is terrible for not repeatedly accepting days late work.
OWS has the highest sense of entitlement. Note the number of rapes, theft from Churches, etc
roger, are you really Andrew Breitbart?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/4140/andrew-breitbart-blows-up-at-ows-protesters-at-cpac
Please cite the "rapes" comitted by OWS protesters. YOU CAN'T because NONE WERE COMMITTED.
Deflection FAIL.
I don't think the rich peoples money makes them behave badly. I think it is easier to get rich if you cheat your way through life.
I read a similar study that said cheating (on spouses) was all about opportunity and the wealthy have more opportunity. I would guess entitlement + opportunity would get you cheating in other facets in life.
Hey Jan,
Havent been to a Barreo or Ghetto lately?
lukewarm many business people have enriched themselves by lying to their customers! Just look at the banking scandal, they duped governments across the world to buy their fake financial products and now entire countries are going bankrupt. How could you possibly believe that business people cant enrich themselves by lying to their customers, you must be very naive. They also enrich themselves by employing slave labor in other countries, there is nothing honest in the nature of corporations or those that own and run them.
Morlack-There are over 6 million corporations in this country and 80% of them employee less than 100 people so stop with the "big banks", "Wall street" nonsense. As a small business owner myself, I take pride in being honest and running my business with integrity. If you have never taken the "chance" to start your own business or stepped out on that "limb" then you are the one who doesn't know what he is talking about. It takes a lot guts and a lot of sleepless nights to start a company and make it succeed, greed doesn't play a role.
lukewarm.....well said. Most small business owners spend a lot of time staring at the ceiling over their bed, especially in the early years, sometimes for all the years !
lukewarm there are very big differences between large and small companies that effectively divide them into separate categories. When people refer to corporate greed it's always the big businesses. Large corporations can hire the best lawyers to find legal loopholes to deny the sick insurance, or move their production to another country to cut down no human labor costs, or lobby congress to get bills passed in their favor, or start a campaign war against science such as global warming, or buy off all of the competition to create vendor lock in such as Microsoft.
An excellent example is intellectual property rights in the US. Europe, for example, doesn't allow the patenting of software, but in the US it's fair game. The lawsuits that come out of this are disturbing. Big software companies bully smaller ones out of business, even if the small business is operating legally, because the lawsuits can cost millions. Apple sues Samsung over ideas that children could think up of.
Corporate greed doesn't apply to small business owners. Greed becomes a serious issue once you're rich enough and have enough influence--Rupert Murdoch is only the tip of the iceberg.
And due to the Citizens vs. United decision, these are the people who decide our presidency now, even more decisively than before. Food for thought.
The study wasn't about small business owners - it was about rich people (unless those small business owners also happen to be rich). The wealthy think they are entitled to do whatever they want. They will do whatever they want. They have no care or concern about morals or ethics; they only care about getting more stuff.
I have friends who are small business owners. They struggled to make and keep their businesses going. One spent several years living in her business, sleeping on the floor and taking sponge baths in the restroom because she put all of her income back into her business, meaning her employees and customers. While she saw to providing health insurance for her employees, that meant she couldn't have it for herself. She often provided reduced rates (and even free services) to customers. We're not talking about people like her and other small business owners.
We're talking about the rich, most of whom have their own businesses/corporations, or those who are high up in someone else's corporation. It's no surprise that they lie, cheat and steal (just like Scarlett - as for killing like she vowed to do, I wouldn't put that past them, either). You're a small business owner, like the other 80% (and I wouldn't say that all of those are highly ethical and moral, either; quite a few, but not all). I hope you keep your sense of morality. When you finally achieve "a lifestyle to which you've become accustomed," then I will think twice about you and your morals and ethics. Statistics prove that they will become questionable. I sincerely doubt you won't be tempted and succumb to greed the way the Sam Walton family did. Prove me wrong.
lukewarm did you read the article before you decided what to focus your rant on? the article is talking about Wealthy people, not small buisness owners. i think most would agree there is a HUGE difference. Wealth stays in families, wealth offers resources/ opportunities that many in America don't have. Wealth breeds wealth. Small buisness owners have no place in this study although i have met quite a few that THINK they are wealthy and act as such. For the most part, it doesn't apply. i wasn't suprised at all about the findings of the study. The wealthy look at us as consumers or "sheeple" and many of us rightfully earn the name.
What a surprise!
Please tell Us something we don't know already.
This is Berkley, what do you expect. There's a reason poor people have bars on their doors and windows and wealthy people don't. Demonizing a class of people on a continual basis isn't going to make a poor person successful nor is it going to solve the problem of our country going bankrupt.
We are more divided today than at anytime I can remember and it's because of stories like this. We use to admire a person who started with nothing and through hard work, perseverance and shear determination became successful, now we are supposed to hate those people. It's a real shame when success is looked down upon.
LOL. You are absolutely correct. But there is a reason wealthy people don't have bars on their doors and windows, they live in GATED COMMUNITIES.
NO, the reason we are more divided today is all the hate the poor rhetoric like yours. We used to have pity on people who through misfortune beyond their control lost everything and find themselves starting all over and working themselves back up the ladder of success and only are looking for a hand UP, not a boot in the face. According to your logic, we are supposed to hate those people. It's a real shame when a desire to succeed gets a kick in the face.
I have a feeling lukewarm is sitting in his Lower Manhattan corner office looking down at the mass of pedestrians and thinking what a problem overpopulation is and if us plebes would just die already. "Look at them, like a swarm of stinking insects, disgusting!" "I worked hard to get here, and who cares if I had to tell a few lies!" "I did what I had to do!" "I CREATE WEALTH FOR YOU FILTHY ANIMALS!"
lukewarm - if you run your company as ethically sound as you say you do - more power to you. I hope your business thrives.
However - it is naive to think ALL companies are like that. Poor people have bars on their windows for a couple other reasons (along with the ones listed above): poor people can not afford to replace what few things they own, and if there were a break in - often response times to these so called poor areas, is extremely slow.
Which kind of ties in to another reason I believe "poor" people don't cheat or lie as much. We have a LOT more to lose! When we lie or cheat or steal - it has real world consequences. We could lose our job, our home, our family, our life. No new job with a buddy, no second home in the Hamptons....
But many many of them did not start with nothing. They were born with a silver spoon. Their parents lived in an area with good schools, helped them thru college, etc.
Unfortunate, lukewarm, for you... Kudos Janet and John, Indiana for hitting the nail on the head. The America of today is one where the only people that get ahead either started out ahead, or got lucky.
Income disparity is at heights not seen since shortly before the fall of Rome...
... and yes, we do still admire those who started with nothing and made it to the top... usually, but they are very few and far, far between. And they generally did not use honesty/ethics to get there. Ever see the movie "Network"? Perfect example and that was over 30 years ago; more poignant every day, sadly.
PS- It is not "success" that is looked down upon, it is success that comes at the expense of any/everyone else.
Success if not looked down upon. Greed is. The wealthy don't want the poor to become successful because that's competition to their wealth. They want it all. Capitalism is dead in this country. Corporatism has taken its place by using its money to squash competition. Today's wealthy support communist China. Today's wealthy are communists. They must be squashed. We must take their money away from them in order to save us from communism and let capitalism thrive. We can do this by hyper-taxing them and regulating them out of existence. When the Sam Walton family is driven from 18 members of their family possessing more wealth than 100 million people in this nation to having nothing, then this nation will economically thrive.
Are we supposed to admire those who start small, and through cheating become wealthy? It seems to me we need business people, and industrialists, because they do things that push us all along. But, we also need government regulations, because they handicap the monied folks, who can injure the rest of us (and will, to make a profit). Given time, you can dig up a hundred government regs and laws (that were fought tooth and toenail by the political right) that when explained correctly, nobody in their right mind would give up.
It sounds nice to talk about "strong individualism", and "The American Way", but when we no longer stop at stop signs, our society slowly, grinds to a halt. And the sum total of the current Republican superstitious drivvle is, THEY ARE TIRED OF STOPPING AT STOP SIGNS. And, the rich among them will arrange it, so they can slide by.
How much freaking taxpayer money was spent on THIS masterpiece? What a credit to our institutes of higher learning.
No wonder Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped the f**k out of school.
Didn't Bill Gates fail out of school...?
Ooo, let me guess. Is it because they hire private security guards?
Some of the most despicable things ever done have been followed by the phrase. "It's only business".
We all learned in grade school which kids just took whatever they wanted, and which kids played fair.
There was also a reason most rich kids played golf instead of baseball. They're taught from an early age to reduce your risk and playing sports that take little more than raw talent to excel isn't a place to show your superiority. A golf course...now there's a domain for a rich kid! Lessons from the pro if you have the bucks....you'll carry the clubs if you don't.
They don't go to jail,get TSA pat downs,they eat with politicians,get bailed out,control the economy,print their own money&force the rest of us to use it, have personal employees, Get to run monopolies and never will become just wealthy,or rich,up-middle class, middle class, lower middle class and poor.
It isn't by accident either just follow the Money trail to where it leads and to whom.
Life ain't fair people will say? Especially when it's rigged against most of us.
I agree completely, we are living in the golden age of manipulation for the few. The new standard these days is many must live poor and die slow deaths so that a few can live in opulence.
A - f**king - men!
ALL crime requires the COMPLICITY of the victim.
So you're saying crime is the victim's fault? Oh, give me a break, diatribe. Let me take a wild guess here: you're white, male, and under 25.
Wow. Wrong on all counts, including interpretation of my previous comment. I should have referenced the comment about being forced to use money printed by the great nameless, faceless "they." Probably too far over your head.
In slightly more, er... esoteric terms: Anyone can commit wrongs against you, but only YOU can make yourself a "victim." It is a choice how one identifies oneself. Fault and complicity are very different. There are many free online dictionaries.
I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions about you personally Diatribe. And you're right -- I read your comment as victim-blaming, rather than a discussion about semantics. Perhaps you should have been slightly less aphoristic.
Still don't agree with you though. If you file a police report because your car's been side-swiped by a hit-and-run driver, and the cops catch the perpetrator, try him and then send you a letter that the guy's been ordered to pay you restitution -- that will be administered by the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, or some such. "Victim" is the term that the law uses for people that are judged to have had a crime happen to them. I don't know what else you would call that status. "Survivor"? Not everyone survives crimes. People that have been murdered are homicide victims; how are they complicit in being called victims? It is not a category that people want to be placed into, and it does not and should not sum up everything about them, but it is the word that we use for the category of people who have been victimized.
All kind of off-topic, but discussions about semantics are always interesting!
lukewarm the reason we are so divided is that our eyes have been opened to the fact that MOST not all rich people acquired their wealth through dishonesty rather than through honesty.
WAIT! THERE'S MORE!!! This guy uses sample sizes of 195 and 108 in his study. A statistically invalid study! And then he makes sweeping conclusions and publishes them, even suggesting college curriculum changes based on these insignificant results!! So, who is cheating???? The author!! And he knows it! WAIT there's more! He's a student, that's all. AND, THERE'S MORE! It comes out of Berkeley. Of course . . .
Umm wth are you talking about????????
What he's talking about, is that the sample size is incredibly small for such a sweeping statement. If this was based on a much larger sample size, such as 10% of the entire US population, this study may have more weight behind it.
The other problem with the study is that it wasn't double blind, the researchers could have had some bias in analyzing the data, such as scrutinizing the wealthier participants a little more closely.
I generally agree with the findings, but I think the researchers should go back and do some more due diligence with firming up the study.
The sample size is small, but that's less troublesome than a PhD candidate using "the upper socio-economic status (so far, so good, but wait for it...) people were way more likely...". I can just imagine how proud his adviser must be hearing one of the gifted children speaking like they went to...well Berkley, Dude! Righteous numbers, like totally stoked, Bitchin'!
Actually, there's a point at which increasing the sample size doesn't get more accurate results.( I think it was around 5000 people, but I took that statistics class ages ago.) If you actually manage to randomly select people, you virtually never get more accurate results past that magic number.
Of course, this assumes you're actually managing to get a random sample. Most college studies are biased towards 18-25 year olds, for instance. And it's easy for pollsters to manipulate results by only calling people in particular political districts or ethnic suburbs. And even the best phone poll, with the most random algorithm possible, will never be able to count people who 1) don't have phones or 2) hang up on pollsters.
Your point is valid that a few hundred people isn't really enough, though. But you never need 10% of the population -- not even close.
@ Ex Staff Sergeant
Been watching one too many infomercials?
Sample size too small? I bet they adjusted it to get the results they desired.
After all, this iks the professors make money and sell textbooks... by getting a study into the news even if They have to lie, cheat and steal to do it.
Before you guys start bashing business owners, you might want to check the facts. Most business's are small businesses like the dry cleaners down the street or the guy who saved enough money to start a Subway. These people may be considered wealthy but they are by no means greedy liars like the media would have you believe.
Employer firms 5,930,132
Firms with 1 to 4 employees 61.01%
Firms with 5 to 9 employees 17.61%
Firms with 10 to 19 employees 10.68%
Firms with 20 to 99 employees 8.88%
Firms with 100 to 499 employees 1.52%
Firms with 500 employees or more 0.31%
Firms with 500 to 749 employees 0.10%
Firms with 750 to 999 employees 0.05%
Firms with 1,000 to 1,499 employees 0.05%
Firms with 1,500 to 1,999 employees 0.03%
Firms with 2,000 to 2,499 employees 0.02%
Firms with 2,500 to 4,999 employees 0.03%
Firms with 5,000 employees or more 0.03%
Firms with 5,000 to 9,999 employees 0.02%
Firms with 10,000 employees or more 0.02%
Over 98% of corporations employ less than 100 people so enough of the "big bank", "big oil" and "Wall Street" talk from the left. Small business owners employ the majority of the people in this country and they are not cheats, they are not evil, they are hard working people that each of you interact with on a daily basis.
The article makes absolutely no mention of small business owners. All it says was that the participants classified as wealthy made more than $150,000 a year. And last I checked you can make over that amount being an employee of a large company, and not just being a business owner.
I would rate your comment as a complete tangent from the topic at hand...
Then you would probably agree that the biggest group of "rich" people who have absolutely no morals or qualms about lying live in Hollywood and we don't need a study to know that. My point was that most wealthy people in this country own a business and I don't believe for a minute that they got their wealth buy lying, cheating or otherwise "gaming" the system. They got their wealth through hard work, treating their customers like gold and burning the midnight oil. I guess the study should have asked how they got their wealth.
@Lukewarm,
You have obviously never met anyone that worked in Wall street or for a major "Banking"/"Investing" industry...
Don't forget hedge funds, law offices, Investment houses, etc all operate as partnerships so those people also "Own" the company...
The amount of employees a company has, has nothing to do with how honest the business is.
Lukewarm suffers from a perceived right to respect based on his/her status as a "job creator." He/she is terrified that honest business practices will cause him/her to be propelled magically into riches and that, based on this study (flawed as it may be) will cause people to assume it was all gained through dishonesty...
Incidentally, I have worked for many bosses and have found that it is the wealthier ones who tend to cheat their employees, or at least keep them from ever having any real upward mobility... I prefer being my own boss and working for myself, for other people...
Shalom, Lukewarm. You could clearly use some.
I think the point is people in business in large corporations are more apt to lie, cheat, etc., not necessarily small business owners. I don't believe anyone is casting aspersions on your character or the way you run your business, lukewarm.
I think it would be much more difficult for a small business owner to get away with it. I think what they are talking about is the entitlement that comes with wealth. It doesn't specify even what they do for a living but there is no doubt that in big corporate money, cheating exists, remember Enron?
Many small business owners make $150k a year and are honest.
Many Public Service Union members make over $100k a year and are dishonest as hell.
No surprises here. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle and so forth ...
lukewarm and yet despite of all yer eloquent explanations it is in fact the big banks that have devastated the world economies, hmm kind of hard to ignore physical reality isnt it? Also i have said nothing negative about small businesses. I also believe that most small business owners are honest, as opposed to most owners who own huge corporations.
Morlack-You are "lacking" in intelligence. Big banks, as you like to put it, had strict lending requirements in the 70's, that is until liberals got the notion that "everyone" deserved a home so the Federal government required banks to meet quotas (Community Reinvestment Act). They forced banks to reduce their lending requirements and went so far as to create Fannie and Freddie to "Federally Guaranty" mortgages.
Now if I told you that you had to loan "xx" dollars to the guy down the street you would probably tell me to get lost but if I said I will guarantee that they will pay you back, then you would change your mind. The Federal government is as much to blame as the banks.
@Lukewarm, Sorry but you're not living in reality here. The community reinvestment act did not create the market for ARM mortgages with low teaser rates to be marketed to anybody with a pulse, and sometimes not even that discriminating.
The Glass Steagal act repealed by the Republicans and signed into law by Clinton (To pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley) is what really caused the down turn because now the banks were able to sell off these bad mortgages to other people and thus spreading the mess around. Prior to the repeal if the bank made a bad bet, the bank would be the only one to take a hit. And the losses would have stopped there. But because the banks were able to securitize the bad mortgages it caused all the banks to be interlinked. And if one failed it would bring the whole system down.
Killer I disagree........
Fannie and freddie under barnet frank and dodd used tax payer money to guarantee loans that should not have been approved in the name of CRA and liberal vote buying propaganda at tax payer expense.
The govt sponsored entities SHOWED wall street that it is perfectly OK to make bad loans to folks that are BAD credit risks and if they wanted to compete in this market that they would need to match the GSE's to get the business.
Bush and mccain and dole all warned that the GSE's were out of control in 2003 and 2005. They suck too b/c they should have done more to stop it rather than giving up b/c the market was going up and they did not want to stop a rising tide.
Mortgage brokers, bankers, real estate reps, the buyers and of course the most guilty of all= the under writers that approved loans they knew were bad and AIG; are all guilty.
Funny thing is franklin raines and barnet frank are not in jail, merril lynch , goldman screws america, aig, etc, no one went to jail, and in fact they were paid by oba-mao to help fix the mess they made and essentially got pay on the front and back end of their CRIME.
Absolutely!
Loans are regulated. For a bank to get Fannuie Mae money they had to follow their rules which when the Democrats wrote them included maqjor increases in the number of foreclosures via accepting more bad credit risks.
The Democrats wrote the rules which caused the banking system to fail. Google it if you do not believe me.
Then google political donations by the home loan industry and you will see that 90% of the donations since the 1970's have gone to the Democrats.
WAIT A MINUTE !!!, Sergeant....aaahhhh, never mind, your comments make no sense...
DUH?
And while I don't knock rich or poor.
The rich are well versed in white lies.
Some poor are born into welfare and blatant lies.
It takes effort to become rich.
It takes barely none to stay poor.
Except many (most) are rich because they are born into it so it takes very little effort or none at all to be/stay rich. hence the sense of entitlement an morbid fear of being poor. many jump to their deaths during stock market crashes. I think perhaps you are not up with the times but back in the early 90's there were time limits for welfare remember newt gingrich and bill clinton? google contract with america and go from there.....