Interesting post but I feel like I'm missing something. If you are a billionaire you probably have at least a vague idea of poverty from either watching movies or driving past the homeless in your limousine. Now that you're dead you have a 50/50 chance of ending up in the lower dice or the higher dice and I assume that the result will be graded, in that the higher you roll the cushiness increases and the lower you roll the poverty increases. A one being worst, living on a garbage dump in the Philippines, and a 6 being the best where you are the richest man or woman in the world. So, since you have a 50% chance (or possibly more) of ending up worse off than your previous life wouldn't you also create a better, fairer society just to cover your arse. It doesn't have to be altruistic, purely self-serving, in case you roll badly?
One of the reasons why I love hypotheticals is that there are no wrong answers. Since I already shared data on the rich being more afflicted with assholery, I will interject some anecdotal evidence. Every rich person I have ever known throughout my life sees poverty as an abstract concept. Actually, scratch that. I don't even think this is a flaw of the rich. It's a flaw of humans. You see a starving child in Gaza and you are saddened by it, but if that same child's starvation were before your eyes - in your town - you would move mountains to save them.
I personally think it takes far more than three ghosts and a Dickensian storyline to change people. Humans are very good at compartmentalizing others' pain. Add to this ability to compartmentalize the fact that rich people tend to be risk-takers.
The rich are so used to the system being rigged in their favor that they can't even fathom a world where they are not at the top.
I guess the distinction needs to be made between rich from childhood and rich through struggle. I have a few friends who were multi-millionaires and quite decent people and generous, with concern for others but they were also Australian and worked for many years to achieve wealth. Though I'm sure there are plenty of Ahole rich Australians as well. But perhaps the aholes are more prevalent in America where the combination of cultural brainwashing, fear of communism, christian fundamentalism and viewing money as God all come into play. There are always exceptions. Chuck Feeney of Atlantic phianthropies seems to be one of them. Gave most of his money away to good causes and then there's Jeff Bezos' former wife who has also been doing great things. They are probably exceptions though.
Yes, that's why I made the distinction in the article - not the nouveau riche. Although one could argue the nouveau riche do not stay nouveau for long. Hedonistic adaptation happens quickly.
I made no claim about you, other than the quality of your education. When we are educated, we can change the numbers on the dice. I suspect you have changed the numbers
I think this is a claim ‘ rather than down with any sense of conscious thought for those lower on the totem pole’ but let’s let it go and I’ll assume your best intentions. And yes I probably did raise the numbers but perhaps I was just lucky. Lots of people don’t get the chance. I feel that in America the dice are loaded against you and to cover that up they’ve substituted ‘rugged independence’ and the ‘power of the individual’ and the ‘American dream’
You are well educated, I estimate you rolled a four or above. You appear to look upwards for inspiration, rather than down with any sense of conscious thought for those lower on the totem pole. This rather proves the point of the author
What a blatantly stupid assumption on your part. I was born into what would be considered a poor family. Unpaid utility bills, water cut off, electricity cut off, debt collectors at the door, constant struggle and drama so I can relate to the poor and homeless. Luckily I’m Australian not American and we have a great safety net, universal health care etc. I wish America had the same but you were controlled by millionaires and billionaires early on and they never let go. But if I was a billionaire, under the rules of this game, why would I not support universal health care, decent wage etc if there was a 50% chance of ending up in the poor side of the dice just to protect myself and have a half way decent life.? Of course their preference would be for the billionaire lifestyle and maybe they couldn’t give a f@ck about the poor (though some billionaires do) but I don’t understand the assumption that they wouldn’t set these rules in place. It just makes sense purely out of self interest. But in the real world of billionaires they are so far from the poor and usually carry a conservative ideology that everyone can pick themselves up from their bootstraps that I’m sure they don’t give the poor a second glance. Studies have shown that the wealthy truly believe they deserve to be wealthy. I suspect they also believe the poor deserve to be poor. So f¥ck them and your assumptions
Rich folks who started life poor and became rich through their own initiative understand the poor because they were once like them- these are the ones who typically recreate foundations and the like to properly give back.
The ones to be concerned about are the ones who are brought up as heirs, and inherent wealth and influence without having to work for it.
Agree. That's why in this scenario, I omitted the nouveau riche. Here's an interesting study that I wanted to work into this piece but it didn't make the cut.
It basically supports what you have outlined - people with new money are more likely to give to charities. In my personal experience, it is young people with generational wealth who are the worst - the trust fund babies.
There have been psychological tests about this. One involved Monopoly. Some players started out with 10 times the money and assets of others, and were convinced they won fairly.
Interesting post but I feel like I'm missing something. If you are a billionaire you probably have at least a vague idea of poverty from either watching movies or driving past the homeless in your limousine. Now that you're dead you have a 50/50 chance of ending up in the lower dice or the higher dice and I assume that the result will be graded, in that the higher you roll the cushiness increases and the lower you roll the poverty increases. A one being worst, living on a garbage dump in the Philippines, and a 6 being the best where you are the richest man or woman in the world. So, since you have a 50% chance (or possibly more) of ending up worse off than your previous life wouldn't you also create a better, fairer society just to cover your arse. It doesn't have to be altruistic, purely self-serving, in case you roll badly?
One of the reasons why I love hypotheticals is that there are no wrong answers. Since I already shared data on the rich being more afflicted with assholery, I will interject some anecdotal evidence. Every rich person I have ever known throughout my life sees poverty as an abstract concept. Actually, scratch that. I don't even think this is a flaw of the rich. It's a flaw of humans. You see a starving child in Gaza and you are saddened by it, but if that same child's starvation were before your eyes - in your town - you would move mountains to save them.
I personally think it takes far more than three ghosts and a Dickensian storyline to change people. Humans are very good at compartmentalizing others' pain. Add to this ability to compartmentalize the fact that rich people tend to be risk-takers.
The rich are so used to the system being rigged in their favor that they can't even fathom a world where they are not at the top.
I guess the distinction needs to be made between rich from childhood and rich through struggle. I have a few friends who were multi-millionaires and quite decent people and generous, with concern for others but they were also Australian and worked for many years to achieve wealth. Though I'm sure there are plenty of Ahole rich Australians as well. But perhaps the aholes are more prevalent in America where the combination of cultural brainwashing, fear of communism, christian fundamentalism and viewing money as God all come into play. There are always exceptions. Chuck Feeney of Atlantic phianthropies seems to be one of them. Gave most of his money away to good causes and then there's Jeff Bezos' former wife who has also been doing great things. They are probably exceptions though.
Yes, that's why I made the distinction in the article - not the nouveau riche. Although one could argue the nouveau riche do not stay nouveau for long. Hedonistic adaptation happens quickly.
I made no claim about you, other than the quality of your education. When we are educated, we can change the numbers on the dice. I suspect you have changed the numbers
I think this is a claim ‘ rather than down with any sense of conscious thought for those lower on the totem pole’ but let’s let it go and I’ll assume your best intentions. And yes I probably did raise the numbers but perhaps I was just lucky. Lots of people don’t get the chance. I feel that in America the dice are loaded against you and to cover that up they’ve substituted ‘rugged independence’ and the ‘power of the individual’ and the ‘American dream’
You are well educated, I estimate you rolled a four or above. You appear to look upwards for inspiration, rather than down with any sense of conscious thought for those lower on the totem pole. This rather proves the point of the author
What a blatantly stupid assumption on your part. I was born into what would be considered a poor family. Unpaid utility bills, water cut off, electricity cut off, debt collectors at the door, constant struggle and drama so I can relate to the poor and homeless. Luckily I’m Australian not American and we have a great safety net, universal health care etc. I wish America had the same but you were controlled by millionaires and billionaires early on and they never let go. But if I was a billionaire, under the rules of this game, why would I not support universal health care, decent wage etc if there was a 50% chance of ending up in the poor side of the dice just to protect myself and have a half way decent life.? Of course their preference would be for the billionaire lifestyle and maybe they couldn’t give a f@ck about the poor (though some billionaires do) but I don’t understand the assumption that they wouldn’t set these rules in place. It just makes sense purely out of self interest. But in the real world of billionaires they are so far from the poor and usually carry a conservative ideology that everyone can pick themselves up from their bootstraps that I’m sure they don’t give the poor a second glance. Studies have shown that the wealthy truly believe they deserve to be wealthy. I suspect they also believe the poor deserve to be poor. So f¥ck them and your assumptions
Rich folks who started life poor and became rich through their own initiative understand the poor because they were once like them- these are the ones who typically recreate foundations and the like to properly give back.
The ones to be concerned about are the ones who are brought up as heirs, and inherent wealth and influence without having to work for it.
Agree. That's why in this scenario, I omitted the nouveau riche. Here's an interesting study that I wanted to work into this piece but it didn't make the cut.
https://ustrustaem.fs.ml.com/content/dam/ust/articles/pdf/2024BoA-PB_Study_of_Wealthy_Americans.pdf
It basically supports what you have outlined - people with new money are more likely to give to charities. In my personal experience, it is young people with generational wealth who are the worst - the trust fund babies.
Nobody should be confusing them with the Andrew Carnegies and Warren Buffets of the world.
Ms. Beccia,
Very readable article. Thank you.
There have been psychological tests about this. One involved Monopoly. Some players started out with 10 times the money and assets of others, and were convinced they won fairly.
‘Hedonistic adaptation’. Great term