Can Occupy Wall Street overcome people’s inherent focus on being in last place and reverse the trend toward greater opposition to redistribution? Our results suggest that they may have chosen a promising strategy for doing so. Last-place aversion – and the accompanying lack of support for redistribution – is particularly pronounced when people near the bottom of the distribution have their attention focused on keeping the people below them down, rather than on redistributing wealth from those at the top. The messaging of OWS, in contrast, divides the world into just two groups: the top 1 percent, and the bottom 99 percent. Framing the issue this way focuses the attention of people at the bottom of the distribution on those at the top – rather than on each other – and implicitly suggests that anyone not in the top 1 percent (“them”) is one of “us.” While it is too soon to tell if OWS has staying power, their rhetoric has the potential to reframe the discussion on redistribution and inequality.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
42 Comments
Add CommentI think there's a simpler explanation: right-wing talk radio, Fox News, and the preaching of the so-called "prosperity Gospel" in evangelical churches. All three spend a lot of time telling people that the wealthy worked hard for their wealth and deserve it and that if people aren't wealthy, it's because they're lazy and just want to "live off the money of hardworking taxpayers." Furthermore, these same sources never pronounce the word "government" without a sneer. The most absurd aspect of this propaganda barrage is the assertion that Barack Obama is a "Marxist." This kind of preaching has been going on for over twenty years, and it is especially effective with low-information types, who couldn't explain Marxism if given an open-book test but have heard all their lives that Marxism is bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "scientific" explanation does not explain why an aversion to more equitable distribution of wealth has increased in the past two years. Only propaganda, which has gone into overdrive since 2008, explains this increase.
Although I agree the propaganda is bad, and is a result of real negligence to self-education, are you not doing the same thing by promoting fox news as bad and right-wing as an uneducated mass?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem lies in this very phenomenon. If you look across the board, right-wing and left-wing don't have more or less education, they are just interested in different subjects. Some want to make money and support themselves and their families, while others want to research for a better future for all, while still others want to benefit others right here and now. No one group should be labelled politically, it is ideological, and when finger pointing begins, we see this disconnect and misinformation spread and become biased which amplifies the problem.
There is no solution that I can see for the complex problem our U.S. has - the growing gap, the greater poverty, the indecencies in governments and lobbies... If we all just become more aware of all sides of the story, and listen, rather than preach, more understanding will come and so will less bickering.
@GreenD - You're forgetting that Fox News was founded specifically on ideological grounds. pdxtran's criticism is appropriate. When they can grant the likes of Glen Beck a national televised audience, they no longer hold the moral high ground required to argue that they are non-partisan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in general a pretty liberal guy, however, I do not feel that the government should "reduce income differences between the rich and poor." I do feel that the government should stop doing things that increase the income difference between the rich and poor. So perhaps the wording of the question more responsible for the trend of increasing dissagrement(with the above statement) than an aversion to being in "last place", economically speaking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough the numbers suggest that avoidance of being last has some impact on the issue, the larger question is why voters vote against their own interest. Are they ignorant? Have they been deluded by the kind of propaganda pdxtran suggests? Do they have an ideology or mindset that prevents them from seeing their advantage? Do they vote their principles no matter what the practical results might be?
In the minimum wage example, a simple explanation for why those making between $7.26 and $8.25 would not want a minimum wage increase can be understood in the following scenario:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeorge has been stocking shelves at Kroger for the past 6 months, earning the minimum wage, and just last week received a $1 raise so that he is now earning $8.25. This week the government raised the minimum wage to $8.25. Harry just started this week at Kroger and now also earns $8.25. George put in 6 months at Kroger, Harry 0 hours and Harry earns as much as George. George feels slighted because the time he has put in at Kroger does not seem to have any value.
When the banks were selling bonds of heaven in the market nobody questioned the power of saints in the almighty Wall Street. Now that those bonds turned into pieces of paper, people again feel like Luther was right about the Church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the banks were selling bonds of heaven in the market nobody questioned the power of saints in the almighty Wall Street. Now that those bonds turned into pieces of paper, people again feel like Luther was right about the Church.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with GreenD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough correct about misinformation, this sort of division is bad for informing each other and ourselves. It only serves to divide us when we should be joining together, trying to come up with solutions. When we are aligning ourselves as either right or left, red or blue, we are distracting ourselves by making ideas into a competition. It is natural, it is sport & it can be fun but when this competition grows out of control it will divide a nation.
When you attack a group, or alienate a group, they are only going to dig in, to defend & reinforce their views. Thus our problem of identification. We have to remember what goals & characteristics we have in common; being citizens, protecting our rights & asserting our authority as the power which drives government.
Whether they are a 'super lefty' or 'neo con', if you talk to a person like that & draw them out of the party mindset, rational discussion, agreement & solidarity will result.
It's not surprising psychology that people below "the bottom rung of the economic ladder" are increasingly opposed to the notion of our government somehow reducing income differences between the rich and the poor. What I find surprising is how many well educated people of good intention fail to comprehend the "Wall Street" brand of greed and corruption permeating today's wealthy speculators and their politicians is beyond the reach of demands for social and economic justice. The Super Wealthy have little reason to be "fair"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be good to research into how we ALL can become more aware that reducing income differences between the rich and the poor is in EVERYONE's best interest.
Before the world socio-economic roller-coaster jumps the track.
Why does this debate have to always be framed as redistribution? Is there not a distinction between arbitrarily taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor, as opposed to finding a means to end the exploitation of the mega-rich? Ending the exploitation, to me, is a much more accurate framing of what people really want. If the exploitation is ended, we would stop creating poverty and start creating opportunity again. As it is, the mega-rich are using up all the opportunities (by doing everything possible to siphon more money off their fellow Americans), leaving the rest of us bankrupt before we even start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with Ignacius. The super rich are gaming the system so heavily in their favor the the rest of us (the 99%) are getting pushed down. Not to mention how they're thwarting amelioration of the pollution crises, health-care reform, and the social safety nets. So, it's not a mindless redistribution of existing wealth that the OWS people want; we want the super rich to get their thumb off the scale.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a difference between redistribution and enacting laws, taxes and other government policies to ensure more "fair play" in the market and workplace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing wealthy is not the problem, not paying your fair share and being given ways to 'cheat' the system is the problem. The American Way is about empowering the individual to their full potential. Not empowering those that know how to work over congress.
Agreed this is not about taking from the rich and giving to the poor, this about levelling the playing field by preventing the rich from stealing from the poor. The corporate bailouts are just that, stealing. The same people who hide from the IRS are the ones demanding bailout dollars from those who struggle to make ends meet. The statement that the rich are gaming the system is exactly correct but it goes even further, they are the ones who created the system in the first place. I lived in the Eastern Bloc and so I have seen firsthand what happens when there is no incentive to succeed. At the same time, rigging the system to ensure that no matter how you perform you personally will profit is not what a free market is about either. For those who froth at the mouth at the idea of social welfare, I think it is time you put your money where your mouth is and stop living off of corporate welfare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue may be not redistribution, as distributing the wealth of 1% won't improve in a noticeable way the welfare of the other 99%, but may be the fact that 1% have an uncontrolled power of decision that heavily influences the economical situation of 99%. As probably the 1% that made wrong choices is the same people that pays the politician's campaigns, and that some of the proposed regulatory measures to prevent that kind of situation repeating is outside the current frame of laws of most countries, it may require a degree of state control some will feel unacceptable, and also a worlwide coordinate action, just to avoid unregulated paradises acting as refuges for evildoers; the subject seems hard to fix. That kind of things has some similarities with sexually transmitted diseases, some people spread STD because of their wrong behaviour, but just as people spreading infections knowing they do it may receive punishments, some mistakes that nearly ruined many would require at least a warning to the persons originating them, in order that they watch more carefully their steps and its consequences. Economy has been always some kind of an anarchistic ruled field, but this has been proven as dangerous for many, and many are those working and producing wealth, payin' taxes and voting in elections. Salut +
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been trying for decades to reason with family on the right. I can tell you that in many cases it is very difficult to reason with someone who believes that climate change is a myth, Obama is a Marxist, evolution is "just a theory", and that corporate tax breaks create jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood luck with that.
I believe the destruction of money is months away.Slave labor will be harder to acquire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the film "Mississippi Burning". A story told by a white FBI agent investigating the murder of Civil Rights workers when asked by a black man he's interviewing, "Where does it come from, all this hatred?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, when I was a little boy, there was an old Negro farmer lived down the road from us, name of Monroe. And he was... Well, I guess he was just a little luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule. That was a big deal around that town. My daddy hated that mule. His friends kidded him that they saw Monroe ploughin' with his new mule, and Monroe was gonna rent another field now that he had a mule. One morning that mule just showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that there was never any mention about that mule around my daddy.
One time we were drivin' past Monroe's place and we saw it was empty. He'd just packed up and left, I guess. Gone up North or somethin'. I looked over at my daddy's face, and I knew he'd done it. And he saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and he said, "If you ain't better than a nigger, son, who are you better than?"
... This is the "Last Place Aversion Paradox" that the Republicans & their propaganda arm, Fox News, leverage. "At least you're better than...
- A Marxist, Kenyan
- Gays
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Educated Elitists
- Teachers
- Another threatening "Other"
... a list that will never end
From the film "Mississippi Burning". A story told by a white FBI agent investigating the murder of Civil Rights workers when asked by a black man he's interviewing, "Where does it come from, all this hatred?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, when I was a little boy, there was an old Negro farmer lived down the road from us, name of Monroe. And he was... Well, I guess he was just a little luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule. That was a big deal around that town. My daddy hated that mule. His friends kidded him that they saw Monroe ploughin' with his new mule, and Monroe was gonna rent another field now that he had a mule. One morning that mule just showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that there was never any mention about that mule around my daddy.
One time we were drivin' past Monroe's place and we saw it was empty. He'd just packed up and left, I guess. Gone up North or somethin'. I looked over at my daddy's face, and I knew he'd done it. And he saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and he said, "If you ain't better than a nigger, son, who are you better than?"
... This is the "Last Place Aversion Paradox" that the Republicans & their propaganda arm, Fox News, leverage. "At least you're better than...
- A Marxist, Kenyan
- Gays
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Educated Elitists
- Teachers
- Another threatening "Other"
... a list that will never end
From the film "Mississippi Burning". A story told by a white FBI agent investigating the murder of Civil Rights workers when asked by a black man he's interviewing, "Where does it come from, all this hatred?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know, when I was a little boy, there was an old Negro farmer lived down the road from us, name of Monroe. And he was... Well, I guess he was just a little luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule. That was a big deal around that town. My daddy hated that mule. His friends kidded him that they saw Monroe ploughin' with his new mule, and Monroe was gonna rent another field now that he had a mule. One morning that mule just showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that there was never any mention about that mule around my daddy.
One time we were drivin' past Monroe's place and we saw it was empty. He'd just packed up and left, I guess. Gone up North or somethin'. I looked over at my daddy's face, and I knew he'd done it. And he saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and he said, "If you ain't better than a nigger, son, who are you better than?"
... This is the "Last Place Aversion Paradox" that the Republicans & their propaganda arm, Fox News, leverage. "At least you're better than...
- A Marxist, Kenyan
- Gays
- Immigrants
- Muslims
- Educated Elitists
- Teachers
- Another threatening "Other"
... a list that will never end
So, it is the insecurity of the people keeping the peers in the group right below them from progressing? Doesn't the same insecurity apply to the "wealthy" group which might be trying to keep the other 99% down there by creating the "unequal" wealth distribution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main issue is not so much income redistribution, but the leveling of the playing field. There is no reason tax-payer funded subsidies should be going to oil and gas producers in the current market. Or, that tax-payer funded subsidies should bail out the cowboy financiers who felt free to gamble with the money entrusted to them, and, in the end, they did this without penalties. Ordinary working people are sick of paying for a financial elite to continue their delusions of superiority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople are angry and their anger should not be simply dismissed as naive. Our financial system has changed, and not for the better. Some further tinkering could iron out some of these unpleasant wrinkles.
Your blog post implies that "income redistribution" is the main point of Occupy Wall Street. My understanding is that the protestors are mainly concerned with getting money out of politics so that the 99% are represented fairly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs one who would be on the receiving end of this wealth redistribution, I would like to give a voice to at least a few of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it possible that some of us just think it is wrong to demand the government give us other people's money? Just because I would have a short term financial gain doesn't make it morally acceptable. I am also rational enough to see that the short term financial gain comes at the cost of long term financial ruin. My aversion to the redistribution of wealth rest both in reasoned self interest and a visceral antipathy to forced expropriation in my name.
Greed isn't trying to hold on to the money that you've earned, greed is demanding that you be given other people's money.
For a single mother working at $1 above minimum wage implies two things. 1) She was working at minimum wage not long ago. 2) Living on minimum wage is living broke. Her narrative is that she bested #1 through hard work and that she cannot go back to minimum or #2, life will suck. We have an existential aversion to last place because it sucks. Counting the slices of bread down to the last slice is a hard way to live precisely because you know that everyone in the pay grade above you is not counting slices of bread just before the next paycheck.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a very competitive society as the US people have what has been called " the last place aversion" paradox, which makes them prefer to distribute income to someone over their social rank than to someone in a lower rank but too close to their income group, says the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN...but I doubt if in other societies things function this way. The research should be done in other countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur local paper interviewed several participants in our local 99% rally. They found many had not voted, giving reasons that it didn't matter because after being elected, those elected did as they pleased anyway. A sad commentary that places professional politicians below used car salesmen on the morality ladder. After the barrage of expensive TV mud slinging preceding the elections, it is a wonder you can find anyone on the ballot unscathed. I believe I could do well in politics by legally changing my name to "None of the above", since it is the choice many seem to make. I keep looking on the ballot for a Social Democrat, but settled for Democrat. I paid into Social Security all my working life. (Starting when in high School.) Thank GOD it wasn't privatized as Bush wanted. Now we find investing in the US government was not a good idea ether. Our Federal Government does a lot of really great things, I have no problem with that. Contrary to popular belief, I don't see a spending problem. All these expenditures were voted on and approved by a duly elected legislature. I see a funding problem. Those with the most funds find it more economical to bribe congress than pay taxes. Those who benefit the most are the owners of the TV stations that broadcast the political prevarication before election day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- The 99% group is simply our answer to Rupert Murdoch.
First a political note - what is advertised as "left" in the US would fall right from centre anywhere in Europe (except in the UK of course).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, an Economics 101 - free market models are based on two assumptions:
1.) people act rationally most of the time based on the information they have;
2.) people always act selfishly.
I won't comment on the validity of the assumptions. However, if we assume for a second that not all people meet the requirements of the model, then the free market machine for distributing scarce resources suddenly turns into redistribution machine favouring those acting rationally and selfishly and punishing those who are irrational and selfless.
And if we take this line of thoughts further and assume that most people are indeed irrational and somewhat selfless, then the obvious result of a laissez faire free market system is concentration of wealth to those who are the most rational and selfish in their behaviour.
That might explain a few modern phenomena observed in economies around the world. But we all know that cannot be true, just ask the newest winners of the Nobel prize in Economics, they certainly think we are all rational and selfish. Why wouldn't we believe them?
Actually, the free market model is based on you conducting yourself in rational self interest based on first hand knowledge of your own life. This means you will compete with a few tens of people by co-operating with a few tens of thousands of people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is also based on the observation that most of you are decent people and as your well-being increases, you naturally reach out to help those who are less fortunate with literally billions of dollars going to charity every year.
A socialist or fascist command economy is built around the belief that a complete stranger with almost no knowledge about your life will behave with complete altruism and absolutely no self interest at all... to make far better decisions about your life than you possibly could.
It is also built around the idea that you are a lousy human being who requires a wise and benevolent politician to take money from you to distribute with supreme efficiency and compassion unsullied by ego or greed.
The free market respects free people while socialism/fascism views them as a threat- as a mean, ignorant rabble that needs to be forced to do the right thing by their betters.
Yep, that is right. Now, follow trough with your logic. What happens to those who are not "decent people" and do not "reach out to those who are less fortunate". Well, they are amassing increasingly more assets in comparison to those who donate part of their wealth. That is exactly what I am talking about - a mechanism for concentration of wealth and power to the most selfish individuals.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my hypothetical example there needs to be a mechanism for the majority of people who are indeed altruistic and not rational all the time to claw back some of the gains that the selfish are making. In Continental Europe and Scandinavia that mechanism is the state and strangely enough Europeans seems to be doing much better then the median American (except when it comes to receiving the Nobel prize for Economics).
Those amongst the rich who are not "decent" still manage to directly employ millions of people while purchasing goods and services that employ millions more... they do no harm by not giving the state more of their money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSetting aside any argument for using their money to alleviate the suffering of the poor, I will assert that leaving more wealth with those who have shown a solid record of financial acumen makes far more sense as economic stimulator than for the state to confiscate it to hand it out to their friends and contributors.
As soon as someone can convince me that the average state bureaucrat has a better understanding of business than Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or the Koch brothers... then they might have some basis for them being able to stimulate the economy better.
As long as the assets they amass aren't used to purchase a shield from market failure from the state it is not a problem except to those who are wracked with envy and greed for other people's success.
I guess you missed it but Continental Europe is currently imploding because of this very mechanism of redistribution you champion. The state functions when it is an obligate symbiont to the market and fails when it becomes a parasite that bleeds away the assets needed for the market to actually function.
Charity with your own money is a perfectly rational decision. The less suffering and privation in a society, the more peaceful, just and safer an environment it is for you and your loved ones to live in. In a free country, you can decide how much of your assets can be allocated to this cause. In a less free country, some stranger decides for you.
It seems that the champions of socialism feel that it will allow some pure and altruistic government functionary to force the less enlightened to shoulder their "fair share" of the load.
The first problem with that is this pure and altruistic government functionary is mythical. Politics rewards those most willing to set aside any convictions in the pursuit of power for power's sake. You may not trust a business person with economic power but imagine that person without capability and accountability as factors in their success... then give them an order of magnitude more economic power... then give them a monopoly on force via the police and military as well.
The second problem is that the unfettered demands of the majority will eventually lead to the "fair" share of the minority being defined as everything they have that I don't have.
Too many responses to read them all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people labor under the fantasy of the American dream - that anyone can become rich and powerful.
This majority does not want to impose restrictions on the wealthy since it believes it will one day join the exclusive club of the "haves". One would be a fool to redistribute one's own wealth (altruism aside).
Check out George Carlin on this topic. The net is that there is a party and you are not invited. There is a club and you ain't in it (never will be).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe politicians, judges, etc. serve as a smoke screen and serve this top 0.1%. The group at the top has no interest in all of this hubub.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
THEY ARE ALSO NOT WORRIED IN THE SLIGHTEST ABOUT ANY OF THE ABOVE.
Check out George Carlin on this topic. The net is that there is a party and you are not invited. There is a club and you ain't in it (never will be).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe politicians, judges, etc. serve as a smoke screen and serve this top 0.1%. The group at the top has no interest in all of this hubub.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT.
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.
THEY ARE ALSO NOT WORRIED IN THE SLIGHTEST ABOUT ANY OF THE ABOVE.
I'm 72 years old and can claim to have seen a few things in my day. My experience is that there are 3 kinds people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are those with limited intelligence who put out little effort. They generally don't do well.
There are intelligent or gifted people who obtain a degree of success on that alone without effort. Then there are the intelligent or gifted people who have a strong work ethic. They really excel.
The people who wave placards protesting whatever on Wall street fall into the first or second category and think someone should help them rather than helping themselves.
I'm inclined to help people with some sort of disability whether it be mental or physical but can't abide those who think the world owes them a living even they have the same talents as those who have made something of themselves.
I agree with you about not demonizing the rank and file of (Republicans, Democrats, tea-partiers, evangelicals, et al.) but we also must identify those "demons" that do exist. It has been pointed out that to understand Nazis better would not have lead us to tolerate them and their actions. If our experience convinces us that certain leaders in finance, military, and government are similar to Nazis, (though they are less competent, it is not for want of trying,) we shall not hesitate to speak and act accordingly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am 73 years old, and I also have observed things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou forgot those of "limited intelligence" who nevertheless have a strong work ethic. They don't do so well either in our society.
But most importantly, you forgot the other ethic, moral ethic. Some poor people respect others who have earned their wealth. But some rich people (although intelligent and/or hardworking) are quite content to lie, cheat, steal, and pervert law and justice, to get as much more than anybody else as possible. Those are the persons Occupy Wall Street is ponting out. With all due respect, you are equating the industrious citizen with the bank robber.
The problem with Wall Street and the Banks began with Congress (Barney Frank and Dobbs). That the banks and Wall Street were more clever than Congress is not hard to figure out, since they have intellectually brighter 'Occupying' them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, no one seems to want to recognize that those who are young and starting out make the minimum wages. They do not stay there for their life time, but move up with age, experience, and worth to the Company's they work for. Perhaps many do not mind the descrepancy because they know they will not always occupy this placement. Everyone has a chance to work and become all they are capable of becoming. Not everyone has or can have the top value, but still can create a wonderful life and money is not really the measurement of that sort of happiness or joy. We are given a Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness. Some find happiness in things other than money. The Rev Corvette should understand that, if indeed, he is a man of God. Some prefer Time over money and freedom of time over employment. They will not make the same amount of money that one might make working full time, but in fact be quite happier than a man who does. If people make choices not to earn or create money do they have the right to insist someone who does share their money? To force them to share? The wealthy have given much to the public in the way of jobs, museums, charity's, churches, symphony guilds, public libraries, etc. Those who made money from their invention have given us all much more time and leisure, health, and much, much, much more. They take risks and for the most part for every success there will be a 1,000 failures. Losses and heartbreak. It is the price they quietly shoulder, and the determined will pick themselves up and try again and again. No one seems to want to share their losses or their disappointments or their risk. Instead of Occupying Wall Street they should be Occupying Congress and the Capital ... where their rights are all being eroded and where in a very short time it will be to late for them to protest, be free, or safe. They caused the financial problems we are in, they continued those problems through their fake Stimulus, where they rewarded Wall Street and the Banks. The problem is with Government, fix government and the rest will disappear.
Isn't it 'greed' to want to take away from one man that which he earned, for yourself when you have not earned it? Isn't that also known as THEFT. Anita
Most people working minimum wage jobs do not think they are going to be there forever. They are young, working their way through school or just have a side job. They like most people work their way up through the decades with talent and education. This is a starting point. They don't believe people should pay more for minimum jobs. They don't identify with being on the bottom rung because it is temporary. I think this article misses the point of why they don't agree with your socialist or political carp to take from someone something you have not worked for or earned. That would just be another form of greed and theft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey should not be on Wall Street (though Wall Street is really corrupted), they should be on the doorsteps of our Federal Government who set all this into motion. That is where the corruption began and where it is growing. Anita
Most people working minimum wage jobs do not think they are going to be there forever. They are young, working their way through school or just have a side job. They like most people work their way up through the decades with talent and education. This is a starting point. They don't believe people should pay more for minimum jobs. They don't identify with being on the bottom rung because it is temporary. I think this article misses the point of why they don't agree with your socialist or political carp to take from someone something you have not worked for or earned. That would just be another form of greed and theft.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey should not be on Wall Street (though Wall Street is really corrupted), they should be on the doorsteps of our Federal Government who set all this into motion. That is where the corruption began and where it is growing. Anita
I find it sad that people cannot see the greed of the poor who want someone to take money from a man who has earned it and give it to one who has not. Where has that ever worked in the history of mankind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEconomic justice is for one man to benefit from his labor and a man who does not labor is not allowed to rob him of it. We are garanteed in the Declaration of Independence the RIGHT to pursue happiness. Not have equal amounts of money distributed to us from some unknown benefactor.
Happiness, REV, does not come from money necessarily. People find many things that make them happy besides 'stuff'. The poor in this country do not compare with the poor of prior times in history. They still have available to them food, shelter, clothing, plazma tv's, iphones etc. If they haven't earned it we have available many charities and agencies very ready to help, family, friends, churches, local, state and Federal agencies.The American people are the most tolerant and generous in the world. We already forfeit 50% of our wages to taxes in various forms to care for others all over the world and support our huge government costs. Anita
"We’ve also found evidence of last place aversion in laboratory experiments. In one, we created an artificial income distribution by endowing individuals with different sums of money and showing them their “rank”– with each rank separated by $1. We then gave them an additional $2, which they had to give to either the person directly below or directly above them in the distribution. In this income distribution, of course, giving $2 to the person below you means he will jump ahead of you in rank. In our experiments, most people still give to the person below them – after all, the alternative is to give $2 to a person who already has more money than you. People in second-to-last place, however, who would fall to last place when giving the money to the person below them, are the least likely to do so: so strong is their desire to avoid last place that they choose to give the money to a wealthier person (the person above them) nearly half the time. If Americans behave like people in our experiments, then it could be challenging to unite those in the bottom of the income distribution to support redistribution."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis semes wrong; wouldn't the last person have to give their $2 to the one above soi f there were ten people and they gave their extra $2 down then it would go from 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 to 10,11,10,9,8,6,5,4,3 while if the second to last gave up it would be 10,11,10,9,8,6,7,4,1 Surely this would be obvious?