It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by VegHead
It's worth pointing out, in this context, that Mississippi has the lowest personal income per capita in the US, but is second in the nation for charitable giving.
I think that it's New Hampshire, which is no. 8 in income, has the lowest rate of per capita charitable giving.
And I agree with other posters about the crime statistics. I know wealthy people. They do commit crimes, but they are often either crimes that are overlook, or they just know how to get out of them.
Look at the statistics for race and income for coc aine usage as opposed to the same statistics for coc aine related incarceration.
"Drivers of expensive cars were three to four times more likely to break the law, and not stop in a pedestrian intersection.
Given the opportunity, wealthier participants took twice as much candy from children as poorer participants.
The wealthy cheated four times as often at dice games when money was on the line--a $50 voucher.
At the end of the game, the wealthier subjects inevitably win. But strangely, when asked, even knowing that they were given every advantage in the game by nothing more than chance, they reported that they deserved to win. Even in the microcosm of Monopoly, wealth bred entitlement."
www.fastcodesign.com...edit on 10-12-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)
The scientists split 50 undergraduate students into two groups. One was primed with the concept of money; other served as a control and was not primed. A few methods were used to get the participants thinking about money: In some experiments, a stack of play Monopoly money was within a subject's peripheral view, or a subject would unscramble word phrases dealing with money, while in others a participant would sit in front of a computer screensaver showing pictures of floating money.
The subjects were unaware the money was even a part of the experiments as they filled out unrelated questionnaires.
Then scientists gave the subjects a challenging problem to solve with the experimenter letting them know he was available for help if needed. Sure enough, the money subjects persisted much longer before asking for help.
In one test, a participant sat in a lab filling out a questionnaire when a supposed student walked into the room and said, "Can you come over here and help me?" She explained that she was an undergraduate student and needed help coding data sheets, each of which would take five minutes. Some of the participants didn't help at all, Vohs said. The control group volunteered an average of 42.5 minutes of their time, whereas the money group gave about 25 minutes.
Another experiment gave participants the opportunity to lend a helping hand in a situation requiring no skills. In a staged accident, a random person walked through a room where a participant sat filling out a questionnaire, and spilled a bunch of pencils. The money participants picked up far fewer pencils than the controls.
A take-home message, Vohs explained, is that "cooperation really goes down the drain when money is an issue."
Would you kill a crying baby to save yourself and others from hostile soldiers outside? Neuroscience offers new ways to approach such moral questions, allowing logic to triumph over deep-rooted instinct.
Even in the microcosm of Monopoly, wealth bred entitlement.
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman
It can be turned to advantage in certain fields, true. Although the advantage would still be lower than the advantages for opponents.
The simple fact lies in majority of people not caring enough and going simply for the lowest price. When you do the honest business, paying all the talented, difference making employees fairwhat the negotiated wage is and well, creating a quality productby who's standards?, while following all environmental standardsthis is true.EPA regulation drives up prices and even more, your prices will be higher than the opponents.not true There will be people who are willing to buy these because of the business ethics, but there are not that many.not true. Market it better to them. Its a sales gimmick. Making millions like that is near to impossible.false. Earning a good income (in US standards roughly 100k a year)that is subjective. is reasonable in long-term. Also it has to be considered that people are affected by the standards signs. You can make all your products like that, the rival company can do a few products in the same category as yours, while at the same time doing the unethical parts also and possibly they could do it cheaper due to the size of the company.like intel,Sony and microsoft. I disagree.
Even in internet and app market you have to make a choice, put a price on your productsomewhat negligible at this point or put it full of advertisements.or both and make twice as much... If you choose the no-advertising version, the opponents with similar products just do a advertisement version and costly version without advertisements at the same time.Yet they have high overhead and you don't.No corporate taxes,no affordable care(marxist care) insurance,no management, no labor,limited federal workplace regulation,no bookkeeping or quarterly reports to shareholders, no property leases,no publisher licenses(VERY expensive) etc etc
Running a nice small business (with a smaller amount of employees < 50) it is possible to run the ethical business, although growing larger is near to impossible as in the top companies do not run in the same way.False You will not be able to compete with them prisewise Doesn't matter. and your ethical business is simply a sales argument.Somewhat true...but meh Gaining a significant market share with that argument is near to impossibleFalse.edit on 10-12-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)