http://www.economist.com/node/16690659 LIFE at the bottom is nasty, brutish and short. For this reason, heartless folk might assume that people in the lower social classes will be more self-interested and less inclined to consider the welfare of others than upper-class individuals, who can afford a certain noblesse oblige. A recent study, however, challenges this idea. Experiments by Paul Piff and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, reported this week in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggest precisely the opposite. It is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity.......
The reason why the rich are less inclined to split their income is because every dollar they might potentially throw at a poor person, will make them a little more equal with the distitute, on the financial scale, which will tremendously counterbalance the opulent's capital even if we're talking only about 0.00001 percentile. Just think about it, the most greedy well-to-do would rather strangle themselves than give away a penny, since, without doubt, they want to distinguish themselves from the poor by allowing money to dominate and keep the economically disadvantaged under their thumb. So why would they want to give up such a priviledge? After all, the only major difference between the rich and the poor is the thickness of their wallets anyway. We are all smart, good-looking and talented in our own ways!
I think that some of the rich think that poverty and suffering are just a part of life that cannot be fixed by throwing money at it. More often than not, the rich realize the time value of money. They are less inclined to let someone else spend it on a one-time necessity, becauese it would be "wasted" compared to the opportunity cost of recycling it by buying assets. You could buy electric toothbrushes and floss for the poor, and you could argue that you are decreasing their tooth suffering, pocketbook suffering from infrequent visits to the dentist, and helping to reduce the carbon footprint of dentists because they won't make as much money on dentist visits. In reality, probably 95% of the oral tools won't be used to their productive capacity, and the situation stays the same. The problem as many see it is the wide gap in income and assets between the super rich and the super poor. In reality this is the symptom. I think that the root of the problem of poverty is that money or time is wasted adding value where its effect is marginal, and money or time is taken from those where its utility is high.
In my experience poor people are the more compassionate. Not all, some on government assistance are not the type you want to hang around. In general though, people who work for a living yet are still poor are some of the nicest and most understanding people on earth. Rich people live in their own world, poor people live in the real world. Poor people understand suffering in a way rich people can never understand.
Rich people tend to be full of self importance so having compassion is unlikely, its a sickness that comes with wealth not a character defect, once u become rich u act that way
Why are we studying what other people should do with their money? Some academic should do a study called "butt the fuck out".
Darwinism... "survival of the fittest"... provide for yourself or perish... quit whining how "the world owes you a living".. Those on the dole should be grateful for WHATEVER they get... it's ingracious when they piss and moan that they don't "get more".
Generosity is never measured by amount. If speaking monetarily, it is at least more properly measured by percentage. Darwin was correct in his descriptions, because he was describing animals and animal behaviour. Since we are all animals, the description fits. However, there are some who aspire to be more than just animals. Whether those ambitious succeed or not is actually for others to say, not for themselves. So even if you try, you will never be able to say yourself that you were successful that way.