Debates
13 Feb 11
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by YorobotWhat "numbers" did the people in the survey "go on"? They weren't provided the actual figures regarding wealth inequality in the US, they were simply asked to give what they: A) thought it actually was and B) thought it should be.
That seems right, although I'm not sure this would stem from an "innate sense of fairness." I think people want what's best for themselves, in terms of acquisition/reward, and in those terms more is better.
You present an experimental setup, while the testsubjects from the survey, I assume, would not first have been subjected to such an experiment.
All they had to go on were the numbers.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by YorobotNot always. There is a well-known experiment in social science where an experimenter gives a fixed amount of money, say $100, to one person, who then has to give part of this money to a second person. The second person has only two choices: either accept the part that is given, or none of the two people get any money. If people acted in pure self-interest, they would accept any amount, even if it was only a small fraction of the $100. In turns out, however, that people in general will punish others when they are too greedy, even at their own expense. Moreover, this also depended on their culture, for example someone from Brazil (a very unequal society) would on average accept a smaller amount than someone from Sweden.
That seems right, although I'm not sure this would stem from an "innate sense of fairness." I think people want what's best for themselves, in terms of acquisition/reward, and in those terms more is better.
You present an experimental setup, while the testsubjects from the survey, I assume, would not first have been subjected to such an experiment.
All they had to go on were the numbers.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderMy bad, no numbers then but their own.
What "numbers" did the people in the survey "go on"? They weren't provided the actual figures regarding wealth inequality in the US, they were simply asked to give what they: A) thought it actually was and B) thought it should be.
I don't know. Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that, given some cold hard facts on wealth, like how those that have it did come by it, a testsubject would make a different assessement of what is fair?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSuch research (and there are many examples of similar research with comparable results) just shows how flawed and incorrect the assumptions of laissez faire enthusiasts are regarding human motivations.
Not always. There is a well-known experiment in social science where an experimenter gives a fixed amount of money, say $100, to one person, who then has to give part of this money to a second person. The second person has only two choices: either accept the part that is given, or none of the two people get any money. If people acted in pure self-intere ...[text shortened]... azil (a very unequal society) would on average accept a smaller amount than someone from Sweden.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by YorobotHow did those with wealth come by it?
My bad, no numbers then but their own.
I don't know. Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that, given some cold hard facts on wealth, like how those that have it did come by it, a testsubject would make a different assessement of what is fair?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by YorobotSince they'd find out the biggest factors in wealth inequality are inheritance and unequal opportunity and that said inequality in the US has sharply increased in the last 30 years, I sincerely doubt it.
My bad, no numbers then but their own.
I don't know. Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that, given some cold hard facts on wealth, like how those that have it did come by it, a testsubject would make a different assessement of what is fair?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by no1marauderI was thinking spirit of free enterprise... glad to not be the cynic for once....🙂
Since they'd find out the biggest factors in wealth inequality are inheritance and unequal opportunity and that said inequality in the US has sharply increased in the last 30 years, I sincerely doubt it.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat the experiment really shows is how careless people are with $100 that they didn't earn.
Not always. There is a well-known experiment in social science where an experimenter gives a fixed amount of money, say $100, to one person, who then has to give part of this money to a second person. The second person has only two choices: either accept the part that is given, or none of the two people get any money. If people acted in pure self-intere ...[text shortened]... azil (a very unequal society) would on average accept a smaller amount than someone from Sweden.
Make that a bureaucrat with $100 billion in tax dollars and you start to see the root of the problem.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by spruce112358I think you don't get the experiment, perhaps you should read my post again. "Careless" does not come into play.
What the experiment really shows is how careless people are with $100 that they didn't earn.
Make that a bureaucrat with $100 billion in tax dollars and you start to see the root of the problem.
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorra(Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that, given some cold hard facts on wealth, like how those that have it did come by it, a testsubject would make a different assessement of what is fair?)
I'm not sure what you mean, I don't know exactly how people with lots of wealth have come by it... do you?
Edify me, plz: where does the syntax go wrong?
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by YorobotSo what are the cold hard facts? Surely you need to know these before making an assessment of what is "reasonable to assume".
(Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that, given some cold hard facts on wealth, like how those that have it did come by it, a testsubject would make a different assessement of what is fair?)
Edify me, plz: where does the syntax go wrong?
Here's a snippet about the economy of Denmark, the world's fifth's richest economy (the US is ninth) as measured by GDP per capita (IMF 2010):
The large public sector (30% of the entire workforce on a full-time basis[13]) is financed by the world's highest taxes.[14] A value added tax of 25% is levied on the sale of most goods and services (including groceries). The income tax in Denmark ranges from 42.9%[14] to 63% progressively, levied on 4 out of 10 full-time employees.[15] Such high rates mean that 1,010,000 Danes before the end of 2008 (44% of all full-time employees) will be paying a marginal income tax of 63% and a combined marginal tax of 70.9% resulting warnings from organisations such as the OECD.[16][17]
Even under these circumstances, the top 20% in Denmark own roughly 60% of all wealth!
14 Feb 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSorry, but you misunderstood. I don't know anything, but if the testsubjects knew something.... that was my point.
So what are the cold hard facts? Surely you need to know these before making an assessment of what is "reasonable to assume".
Here's a snippet about the economy of Denmark, the world's fifth's richest economy (the US is ninth) as measured by GDP per capita (IMF 2010):
[quote]The large public sector (30% of the entire workforce on a full-time basis ...[text shortened]... ]
Even under these circumstances, the top 20% in Denmark own roughly 60% of all wealth!