ChatterBank9 mins ago
Last place adversion
Interesting report in the Economist. In experiments, poor people would rather give their money to rich people than to poor people who then might be catch them up.
http://www.economist.com/node/21525851
// Instead of opposing redistribution because people expect to make it to the top of the economic ladder, the authors of the new paper argue that people don’t like to be at the bottom. One paradoxical consequence of this “last-place aversion” is that some poor people may be vociferously opposed to the kinds of policies that would actually raise their own income a bit but that might also push those who are poorer than them into comparable or higher positions. The authors ran a series of experiments where students were randomly allotted sums of money, separated by $1, and informed about the “income distribution” that resulted. They were then given another $2, which they could give either to the person directly above or below them in the distribution.
In keeping with the notion of “last-place aversion”, the people who were a spot away from the bottom were the most likely to give the money to the person above them: rewarding the “rich” but ensuring that someone remained poorer than themselves. Those not at risk of becoming the poorest did not seem to mind falling a notch in the distribution of income nearly as much. This idea is backed up by survey data from America collected by Pew, a polling company: those who earned just a bit more than the minimum wage were the most resistant to increasing it.
Poverty may be miserable. But being able to feel a bit better-off than someone else makes it a bit more bearable. //
I found this inteteting. Your comments please.
http://www.economist.com/node/21525851
// Instead of opposing redistribution because people expect to make it to the top of the economic ladder, the authors of the new paper argue that people don’t like to be at the bottom. One paradoxical consequence of this “last-place aversion” is that some poor people may be vociferously opposed to the kinds of policies that would actually raise their own income a bit but that might also push those who are poorer than them into comparable or higher positions. The authors ran a series of experiments where students were randomly allotted sums of money, separated by $1, and informed about the “income distribution” that resulted. They were then given another $2, which they could give either to the person directly above or below them in the distribution.
In keeping with the notion of “last-place aversion”, the people who were a spot away from the bottom were the most likely to give the money to the person above them: rewarding the “rich” but ensuring that someone remained poorer than themselves. Those not at risk of becoming the poorest did not seem to mind falling a notch in the distribution of income nearly as much. This idea is backed up by survey data from America collected by Pew, a polling company: those who earned just a bit more than the minimum wage were the most resistant to increasing it.
Poverty may be miserable. But being able to feel a bit better-off than someone else makes it a bit more bearable. //
I found this inteteting. Your comments please.
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
maybe those giving to the rich, think they will remember and give them a leg up when the time comes. wouldn't surprise me. One thing i did learn was that don't work for a woman, she will rarely if ever give you a hand up, not favouritism, just that those in the sisterhood would help one another, not a chance, not that i ever experienced. There was a report i read to that effect a few weeks back, that for most women to get up the corporate ladder, better to work for a bloke. Bit off tack i know.
I think there is another factor here those who are a little bit up the ladder feel " I got here by my own effort why should you get it for nothing. "
The further up the ladder you get the less that applies , also by giving, it enhances your status. You can afford to give and don't need a hand out.
I had an aunt who insisted going private rather than use the NHS. She was bombed out during the war and refused to accept a council house because it was subsidised. Pure snobbery .
With regards to women working for a woman boss my daughters both said they would rather work for a man.
The further up the ladder you get the less that applies , also by giving, it enhances your status. You can afford to give and don't need a hand out.
I had an aunt who insisted going private rather than use the NHS. She was bombed out during the war and refused to accept a council house because it was subsidised. Pure snobbery .
With regards to women working for a woman boss my daughters both said they would rather work for a man.
Modeller, i never needed any help, just did things for myself, but as to working for women, worse thing you can do. i believe the real reason, is that many women struggle to get to the top of their chosen profession and don't see why other women should have an easier time of it either, may be well off base with that, but thats often how it seemed.
1 to 6 of 6
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.