General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"...wealth can actually change how we think and behave..."
To be sure, there ARE genuinely altruistic bazillionaires, but even those people give to the ones they CHOOSE to .
Usually they start to give generously after a lifetime's worth of "making money" or perhaps a lifetime's worth of spending inherited wealth.
It's a good thing that they do give, BUT, the recipients can never really count on help from them and surely there is a "worthiness test" before charity is given.
Charity feels good to the giver, but oftentimes it's quite chafing to the receiver, especially since it can be withdrawn as quickly as given.
I always think of the random "health expos" that draw so much press and the 5-k runs & all the other "special events" that have a cause attached to them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6302790
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-14-09 07:20 AM
Shifting the weight, Casting off responsibility
The health care "expos" that are going on around the country, point to another problem we have. It's a problem that most are covering incorrectly.
The former Aetna executive who saw & reported on one in Appalachia, touched on it, and now there's another one going on here in Inglewood, CA.
THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people are showing up for free health care.. They are waiting in the hot sun, for a chance to see a doctor or a dentist. They are getting vision tests too.
The media is showing some of it, because it's newsworthy, BUT they stop there.
The altruism of the doctors, nurses & aides is commendable, but these people should not HAVE to donate their time & money to care for poor people, in the "richest country" in the world (as we like to call ourselves).
It would appear that becoming a doctor or nurse may start out as a dream to "do good", and that somewhere along the line, a schism happens in the medical community, and some doctors peel off to become "rich". The true altruists of the medical community end up carrying a much heavier load, because their consciences and their calling, push them to always do "more". These dedicated people are also in the process of burning themselves out.
The fact that they willingly donate their time, expertise, energy and even money, is covering for the obvious lack of public responsibility. Once "someone else" does a task, many just shrug & say "Whew, now WE don't have to do that".
I have NOTHING against volunteerism, but this is something else.
Schools feel perfectly justified in having mass lay- offs, and then "demand" more parental participation, or volunteers. Every paid position they can eliminate, and replace with a non-paid volunteer, means more money is available to be spread around to those at the "top".
Social Services agencies routinely cut poor people from various programs, as they change the "requirements" for participation, and then push these people into food pantries that are understocked even in the best of times. They deny housing to poor people, and shove them into their cars, vans & into tents, while houses sit empty (their values dropping daily, as they are vandalized). The "positive effect" of these actions, comes when the politicians responsible crow about being "fiscally responsible", and brag about how they CUT "waste".
The "waste & fat" they cut, are PEOPLE...poor people.
Doctors & nurses with a social conscience are stepping into the void in health care because no one else will, and because they feel obligated to fulfill their Hippocratic Oath, and "the state" breathes another sigh of relief because now THEY are off the hook with yet another public obligation they have failed to meet.
I wonder how many of our "leaders" are thinking about how this looks to the rest of the world. Doctors who may have (in the past) come to the impoverished 3rd world countries, to donate some medical treatments, are now fanning out across the richest country in the world, to donate care to its own citizens, while insurance fat-cats & hospital corporation vampires & big-pharma hyenas are raking in the dough by the hundreds of thousands per hour, and naming buildings after themselves instead of helping medically-deprived fellow citizens.
These same corporate robber-barons are blowing through premium payments made by "the little people", to fund low-information voters' Town Brawl disruptions, just so the fat-cats can eventually cut off coverage or under-provide services to those same people. What a laugh-fest must be going on in the boardrooms!
The money they are throwing at disruption of necessary changes in medical care delivery systems, would fund many a Health Expo....or better yet, eliminate the NEED for them.
While these are necessary and the people participating get a lot out of them it all comes back to one central point. Why is it NECESSARY for poor people to camp out days in advance in hopes of seeing a doctor or why is necessary for charities to raise money to find cures for diseases.
Imagine if polio research had been dependent on charity. How many of us or our children
would have gotten polio?
February 19, 2012|By Britt Peterson
http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-19/ideas/31074206_1_politicians-money-wealth
- (Chip Wass for the Boston Globe)
As the presidential primary race has unfolded over the last few months, curious Americans have angled for a look at the candidates walletsand observed that they are bulging. Theres Newt Gingrich, with his $7 million fortune and an up to $1 million revolving line of credit at Tiffany. The relentlessly anti-elitist Rick Santorum disclosed last week that he earns roughly $1 million a year. Mitt Romney built an immense $200 million fortune through his corporate raider work at Bain Capital; even Ron Paul, who claimed in one debate that he was embarrassed to show his tax forms because he made so much less money than his rivals, is worth as much as $5.2 million.
This striking wealth among politicians goes beyond the GOP. One of these four men will face off against the now wealthy Barack Obama, whose book royalties alone ran to $2.5 million in 2008. Beyond the Oval Office, theres Congress, whose members have a median net worth of $913,000, compared with $100,000 for the rest of us, according to a recent New York Times report. (Massachusetts own John Kerry is one leader of the pack, with a fortune that in 2009 was estimated at $167 million.)
Politicians would like us to believe that all this money doesnt matter in a deeper sensethat what matters is ideas, skills, and leadership ability. Aside from a little extra business savvy, theyre regular people just like the rest of us: They just happen to have more money.
But is that true? In fact, a number of new studies suggest that, in certain key ways, people with that much money are not like the rest of us at all. As a mounting body of research is showing, wealth can actually change how we think and behaveand not for the better. Rich people have a harder time connecting with others, showing less empathy to the extent of dehumanizing those who are different from them. They are less charitable and generous. They are less likely to help someone in trouble. And they are more likely to defend an unfair status quo. If you think youd behave differently in their place, meanwhile, youre probably wrong: These arent just inherited traits, but developed ones. Money, in other words, changes who you are.
snip
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)It's not the wealth itself, it's the perceptions of social dominance that come with great wealth that "switch on" social instincts of dominance.
Progression
(30 posts)This sounds similar to the frequently mentioned excerpt of "power corrupts".
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)izquierdista
(11,689 posts)People become rich exactly because they have a harder time connecting with others, show less empathy, and dehumanize those different from themselves.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You get really wealthy by focusing on making money to the exclusion of a lot of other things, yes there are exceptions but they are fairly rare..
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)In my field (accounting), I see plenty of people who are charitable and I would consider them wealthy. I would tend to agree with you with business owners and some professions (sales being one) where that is true. However, the vast majority of people I know who are wealthy are wealthy because of career selection.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)OneGrassRoot
(22,917 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)People change to be more of who and what kind of person they really are inside. If you're an insecure stingy person then money only enhances that. If you're a generous person who believes in making life better for people the way you use your money will reflect that.
Money is power but power isn't always selfish or mean. Unfortunately it seems to be the norm though, so the question is what kind of person is likely to pursue money as an end in itself? And we've been over that here at DU for years. The bullies, psychopaths and sociopaths tend to pursue money and power so they make it to the top more. The fact that everyone admires them and subliminally thinks being rich is a virtue bestowed by God only rewards the bully.
Raine
(30,540 posts)I totally agree.
libtodeath
(2,888 posts)that the founders spoke of the general welfare in the Constitution.
They knew that individuals would never do enough overall so the government is charged to.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)who give a lot to many charities and love to pat themselves on the back for it as well. Sadly the money these people are making is from the stock market. So as they are promulgating and profiting from events like the BP blowout, private prisons, the MIC, Foxconn, climate science denial, child labor and deforestation they are taking a small sliver of those profits and giving them to pet projects & organizations for the poor.
Humankind would be far better off if they didn't make enough to share. A few thousand more generous people like that and we'll all be living in a wasteland lickety split.
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Oh, those fat cats care nothing about poor people. Epic Fail
The B. Glob needs to be attacking Porno Brown for his riches, and we do too.
JAO
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)politicasista
(14,128 posts).)
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)It's hard to tell sometimes
It does seem that every day there's a new survey out, doesn't it?
I DO think one thing they showed IS valid though. Having lots of money can make one less empathetic. If you never have to worry about where the money will come from to fix a car, pay a bill, etc, it's easy to see why one may not understand how distressed others get when they cannot....especially when it's old money, and the only people you ever associate with are other rich folks.
It's almost child-like thinking.. money is always there. I remember my (then) 8 yr old saying once "just go to the ATM" when I told him I did not have any money
politicasista
(14,128 posts)Peace.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)He was I guess center left economic-wise; Not very well read or informed beyond watching CNN, but disliked Republicans and definitely didn't like how corporatism was running roughshod over the working class.
Right after he retired he inherited a good bit of money and it didn't take long before he began spouting Fox news talking points, getting hysterical about "entitlements" from his taxes, "the deficit", and overall went from being an unassuming big hearted person to an opinionated right wing zealot who gets mad if you disagree with him.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)And perhaps his friends and family all started expecting him to give it to them. Maybe he suddenly became very popular with people who didn't give a shit about him before. One person getting a lot of money changes everyone around them too.
Perhaps some of those people around him started telling him what to do with the money, like give it to their personal pet charities and some may have tried too hard and gotten too pushy and may have tried to shame him or criticize his actions.
None of what I say here is unfeasible. Money does change people but it's into just more of what they already are. In your friend's case it may be he's reacting with fear and guilt, rather than actually becoming an asshole. He may also feel physically in danger now.
But then, maybe he was always lying to everyone before. Whatever sounds more like the truth should be pretty close to the actual truth.
And I'll go even further to say that the lack of money changes people too. And in profound and painful ways too.