are rich people less morally developed than poor people?

[Caldari Ghost]

are rich people less morally developed than poor people?

[Rio]

I do think we are reaching the point where Internet should count as a Right. Given even getting a job might require it.

And the ability to look up information can save lives.

[D. Flame]

Автор сообщения: Spencer

Автор сообщения: craigsters

poor people are more charitable then rich people

That is a poor country belief.

No, it is a observable fact.

Like look at tips at a restaurant. Super poor people are not super giving, because they have nothing to give. Then people with a bit more to give are more generous. Then you hit a certain point when it reverses, and people above that line just become stingier and stingier. AKA the Scrooges from the Christmas Carol.

[Soren]

Автор сообщения: D. Flame

Depends, but millionaires and especially billionaires are 100% morally repugnant. You can't become that rich while also being a good person.

Millionaires don't necessarily have to be unethical to generate that much wealth. Book deals, movie deals, and stuff like that could amass that much money while ripping off no one.

[90054321564584560]

Автор сообщения: Soren

Автор сообщения: D. Flame

Depends, but millionaires and especially billionaires are 100% morally repugnant. You can't become that rich while also being a good person.

Millionaires don't necessarily have to be unethical to generate that much wealth. Book deals, movie deals, and stuff like that could amass that much money while ripping off no one.

Depends. Some games and type of entertainment like porns do prey and exploit on the some unstable minds

[Triple G]

Автор сообщения: Spencer

Text, video, and links

If the rich would be more charitable than the poor, they wouldn´t be rich, would they?

And that rich people are able to donate more than poor people is probably no big science. But here it´s usually not about making donations to count as charitable for the image, but about sharing stuff, helping each other out, and making tips - and nobody would know about it.

Also it´s about rich and poor - and morals. Not about being intelligent or not. Is it intelligent to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be poor? Or is it intelligent?

Fact is probably: if You have a problem with a rich, intelligent guy - they will most likely go to the court with it. If You have a problem with a poor, stupid guy - You will probably have a broken nose. But that doesn´t mean that either of these is nicer or more charitable.

[Rio]

Have you guys ever seen the movie "Blank check"?

Its when a poor kid is given a check to fix his bicycle, but the person giving him the check didn't fill in the amount. So the kid writes an extremely high amount on it and the bank mistakenly clears it.

And like many poor people, when given tons of money, he goes full shopping spree mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WFYITl-g0

[Soren]

Yeah, I've seen the movie. Not that great.

But what happens in it is generally what happens to most people who win the lottery. Except by the end of it, they're in debt and their life is ruined because they spent all their winnings and got used to living on a high income they never had.

[D. Flame]

Автор сообщения: ⛧

Have you guys ever seen the movie "Blank check"?

Its when a poor kid is given a check to fix his bicycle, but the person giving him the check didn't fill in the amount. So the kid writes an extremely high amount on it and the bank mistakenly clears it.

And like many poor people, when given tons of money, he goes full shopping spree mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WFYITl-g0

This is why giving the top 1% tax breaks and such doesn't stimulate the economy (they just hoard it), but giving money to the less fortunate does (they immediately recirculate it, spending it, and thus boosting the economy).

[TwisterCat]

Well, I've been told that it's easier for camel to go through an eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. While not impossible, wealth in life does you no favors in the morality department. It certainly makes for a tighter squeeze.

I think finances weigh you down a lot if you focus too much on them. Poor or rich. It's just harder for somebody in a completely materialistic environment to look past the wealth.

I don't think the difference is too noticeable, but poor people I'd say are generally more moral.

[Spencer]

Автор сообщения: Triple G

Автор сообщения: Spencer

That is a poor country belief.
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1803120595527446611


The real science is clear, but was mangled by leftist researchers and the leftist media who wanted to push a certain narrative about the poor being noble.

"A decade or so ago, the media got to talking about a series of studies that appeared to provide evidence that rich people were antisocial and poor people were relatively wonderful.

My latest article argues that the research was weak and it didn't even hold up when it was written"
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1803646976799498633
https://www.cremieux.xyz/p/are-the-rich-antisocial-and-the-poor


The poor are high time preference and will gamble their money away long before they use it for anything virtuous.

Also goes with trust, the poor are untrustworthy and so they do not trust anyone. Low IQ means they cannot tell when to trust so best not to. The wealthy are more trusting as a whole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q9rObQ6sto
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1803654695262580965
"You could argue that the poor are more selfish because they're poor. And, OK! But even in the setting of the well-known trust game, the rich were more trusting and more trustworthy:"
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1805801039745978842


The only potential outliers are religious groups, but we all know that isn't what they were talking about when pushing the nobility of the poor.

"This is key. The reason is, some studies had indicated that the poor donate relatively larger portions of their incomes.

But, those studies all looked at donations among those who donated. In other words, they didn't account for differences in the likelihood of donating at all."
https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1803654677289935314

If the rich would be more charitable than the poor, they wouldn´t be rich, would they?

And that rich people are able to donate more than poor people is probably no big science. But here it´s usually not about making donations to count as charitable for the image, but about sharing stuff, helping each other out, and making tips - and nobody would know about it.

Also it´s about rich and poor - and morals. Not about being intelligent or not. Is it intelligent to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be poor? Or is it intelligent?

Fact is probably: if You have a problem with a rich, intelligent guy - they will most likely go to the court with it. If You have a problem with a poor, stupid guy - You will probably have a broken nose. But that doesn´t mean that either of these is nicer or more more charitable.

You are ignoring actual evidence to repeat the baseless pieties of the left.

Outside highly religious groups who wield high levels of discipline to take vows of poverty to devote their lives to service, the poor are simply spending their money recklessly because they don't know any better.

You know this is true.

The donations are to the gods of gold grillz and rims.

If you have a problem with a poor stupid guy it was probably over something a more intelligent person would have not bothered thinking about or exposing themselves to at all.

These are people who will execute people over a pack of cigarettes
https://x.com/AskAnshul/status/1805066039237152779
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dream-taken-away-man-charged-223037813.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11283825/Texas-execute-inmate-won-religious-rights-case.html

They aren't committing crime being Robin Hood for the poor, they have high time preference and simply only think about the moment and themselves.

All the things are correlated by data and research, you are asking questions as if they haven't already been answered.

[Rio]

Автор сообщения: D. Flame

Автор сообщения: ⛧

Have you guys ever seen the movie "Blank check"?

Its when a poor kid is given a check to fix his bicycle, but the person giving him the check didn't fill in the amount. So the kid writes an extremely high amount on it and the bank mistakenly clears it.

And like many poor people, when given tons of money, he goes full shopping spree mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3WFYITl-g0

This is why giving the top 1% tax breaks and such doesn't stimulate the economy (they just hoard it), but giving money to the less fortunate does (they immediately recirculate it, spending it, and thus boosting the economy).

I've heard the 1% use it to boost the company stocks, which pleases investors.

And happy investors means people at the top keep their jobs, and probably get bigger bonuses.

That is to say money doesn't make anything physical, but it goes towards the illusion something has become more valuable, to make more money.

[Apollo702]

Keep in mind that (at least in the U.S.) much of charity is more welfare for the rich-wealthy.

The shortest version is that the poor tend to benefit as a side-effect at best. "Charity" tends to be based on tax dodges.

Large portions of the art market functions this way. Declare the art to be worth $$$. Sit on it for a while and then donate it as a charitable act. Presto! Now we have value created out of thin air.

[Soren]

Автор сообщения: Apollo702

Keep in mind that (at least in the U.S.) much of charity is more welfare for the rich-wealthy.

The shortest version is that the poor tend to benefit as a side-effect at best. "Charity" tends to be based on tax dodges.

Large portions of the art market functions this way. Declare the art to be worth $$$. Sit on it for a while and then donate it as a charitable act. Presto! Now we have value created out of thin air.

Tax dodges as well as painting themselves as a philanthropist. You get to spend money to make yourself look good, on top of avoiding taxes as an added bonus. This is why I respect the hell out of charity that isn't getting you free tax credits.

Sometimes the celebrity/company will just say they're donating too, and they never end up doing it or they do it pointlessly. Logan Paul did something similar with Crypto Zoo. Saying he'll pay back all the people who got scammed. Then (re)sued Coffeezilla over this because he wouldn't stop asking when Logan was going to pay back all those people. Logan wanted all the free positive PR of saying he will do good, but refused to do it.

[Triple G]

Автор сообщения: Spencer

All the things

Wait - have You edited in Your previous post, which i snipped, so people don´t have to scroll though the same longer posts all over again?

Are You rich?
Do You feel intelligent?

I need the answers for a small real time study about morals. Thanks in advance.

Автор сообщения: Spencer

All the things are correlated by data and research, you are asking questions as if they haven't already been answered.

Could You give me the link to the answers of these questions? Which are basically the only ones i asked...

Автор сообщения: Triple G

Also it´s about rich and poor - and morals. Not about being intelligent or not. Is it intelligent to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be rich, when there are poor people? Is it stupid to be poor? Or is it intelligent?

I mean it´s still about morals in the thread.

Yet You have written many words, and gave many links - but none of it is about morals. The way You write certain things should mean that one should assume that certain things are good or bad, while You somehow don´t say it directly - which would be needed in a discussion about morals, or moral development.

You basically say that rich people are better than poor people. But are these good morals? And are morals defined by the things people spend their money on? It´s it worse to buy golden rims compared to firing 300 people to have more money, while You donate a bunch of money so You don´t feel too bad?

[Ulfrinn]

Автор сообщения: Triple G

Автор сообщения: Ulfrinn

It's a luxury.

I don´t know where You live, or how You define luxury, but it´s like a common, standard thing to have. If You have the fastest connection possible it might be luxury. Same as having a car isn´t luxury. But having a Bugatti is.

It´s about the standards in some society.

Автор сообщения: Ulfrinn

And it's a luxury you wouldn't be enjoying right now if those evil rich people didn't drop it into your lap at an affordable price.

They didn´t "give" it for charity reasons though, but to make more money out of their investment.

It would have been the same way if all the people would have funded it via taxes. You don´t need rich people for it. And i´m pretty sure that a good bunch of the network connections isn´t made by rich people, but by tax money of the average Joe.

Автор сообщения: Ulfrinn

How many lives have YOU improved? I'm guessing much, much less than 5.3 billion.

Around 450 millions. And You?

Yeah, living in a rich country makes luxuries a more common thing for people to have. Welcome to capitalism.