I am not fond of generic labels. I am even less fond of ad-hominem attacks in order to make a point. But if this report is to be believed, rich people tend to be jerks more than poor people for some interesting reasons.
The report is worth a read but here are some it's highlights:
Research sometimes upholds our stereotypes and sometimes contradicts them:
* If you believe that the poor are lazy, for example, you might be surprised by Census Bureau statistics showing that the majority of people under the poverty line are too young, too old or too disabled to work.
So it seems to be true that a lower percentage of poor people work than rich people but that is in large part due to the fact they are sick, old or a child. Let's examine each of these is turn:
1) You are poor because you are sick - AAAH Die, Get Well or buy insurance (with exemptions from what you are actually sick from), say the GOP
2) You are poor because you are old - AAAH But we'll raise the retirement age so you can stagger on a bit longer, say the GOP
3) You are poor because you are a child - AAHAH but be school janitor, says Newt.
Perhaps the GOP policy wonks have read the same research and decided to piece-wise attack all reasons for poverty and pretend the people who are poor are there because somehow they want to be, and not because circumstances put them there.
* If you believe the poor are less educated, though, research seems to back you up. Households where the adults have lower levels of education tend to be in lower income brackets, and more likely to move down economically, than households where adults have higher levels of education, Census Bureau statistics show.
So poorer people tend to have lower levels of education. That seems be proven by research. It looks like the GOP have read that research also. Let's examine their response:
1) Evolution - they attack an almost universally accepted scientific theory and glorify the self-imposed ignorance that lets them refute it on no credible evidence.
2) While they are at at, they demonize the teaching profession - especially the higher levels of teaching - as hotbeds of socialism and atheism. They glorify the mocking of the higher institutions of learning.
3) Climate change potentially gets in the way of the 1% and their profits, so they demonize and refute the research.
So it seems that by making an informed and affordable education much more difficult to obtain, and amazing enough less desirable to obtain, , the GOP keep a strong and steady downward pressure on the poor getting that education that will lift them out of poverty.
But let's get back to the "jerk" accusation, shall we? The article goes on to explain:
All of which brings me to the growing body of research that shows the rich behaving badly. Those who study the psychology of wealth have found the rich seem more likely to be unethical, ungenerous and uncompassionate than people lower on the socio-economic scale.
Now I distinctly recall the GOP's plan for life after the dismantling of the welfare state - faith based charity and private giving. But the research says, that in general (and it's a trend, mind you) that as people get richer they are less likely to help people less fortunate than themselves. The piece acknoledges:
The researchers knew better than to draw the conclusions that all rich people are corrupt and that all poor people are saints, noting high levels of violent crime in poor areas as well as "notable cases of ethical action among upper-class individuals that greatly benefited the greater good."
"Examples include whistle-blowing by Cynthia Cooper and Sherron Watkins, former vice presidents at WorldCom and Enron, respectively, and the significant philanthropy displayed by such individuals as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett," the researchers wrote. "These observations suggest that the association between social class and unethicality is neither categorical nor essential, and point to important boundary conditions to our findings that should be examined in future investigations."
But the cited research is quite clear - as people get richer they are less likely to help the poor. So here is the GOP's logical fallacy:
1) Reduce goverment and taxes (on the rich) and the economy will grow
2) Everyone will get wealthier
3) The poor will be aided by charity out the wealthier people's income
Regarding (1) - This policy has been pushed since Reagan. it's hasn't worked yet has it?
Regarding (2) - Income inequality just keeps getting bigger as discussed at depth on Kos.
Regarding (3) - The article discussed here and the cited research within refutes this point firmly
So all three legs of the GOP welfare plan are debunked, Not a steady platform to build a new social safety net, is it?
