Generosity Index 2004

Quote (MidnightToker @ Nov. 22 2004,15:18)
Is this a stretch or what?

Phoo - that's a stretch :p
Actually, it's not. Sociologists have long known that in the US poverty and a sense of interdependence go together, middle class and middle class values of self-reliance and independence go together, and in the upper class a sense of righteous desert is found. the more money people have, the more they seem to think they deserve it and others don't. That's empirically confirmed by a whole lot of studies. And by the experiences of many here, I'd bet. :)

OK Tom - you’ve got some data on everything :slight_smile:

The index I’d like to see, if the amount/percentage of lottery tic’s shown by state. Is MI on the top of that list?

Quote (TomS @ Nov. 22 2004,15:49)
the more money people have, the more they seem to think they deserve it and others don't. That's empirically confirmed by a whole lot of studies. And by the experiences of many here, I'd bet. :)

I've worked in a nonprofit fundraising organization and these observations aren't very reflective of our experience. We receive philanthropic gifts from across a wide range of economic levels. Maybe our giving base is unique, but across the board, we rarely see this attitude you mention. The main characteristics we notice are that people on the lower end of the economic scale are tighter and much more restrictive about giving and the designation of their gift. The upper end of the economic class tends to spread out their gifts in as many ways as possible, but are very willing to share their 'fortune,' and they tend to be extremely humble, avoiding excessive publicity as much as possible.

Pete, I have to agree with Bubba on this one, not only don’t your “facts” support your argument, but your whole argument is presented at a level which is far below what I’ve come to expect from you.

And Ksdb, what you describe conflicts with my own personal experience.

Even as a kid, when I was a “butcher’s boy”, I knew that when riding my bike delivering the weekly meat, I could always expect tips from the dwellers of the council estates, not much, but they couldn’t afford much.

It was the rich end of town which gave nothing. Which is why I suppose, they became, and remained, rich.

Ali

Quote (Ali @ Nov. 22 2004,17:47)
And Ksdb, what you describe conflicts with my own personal experience.

Even as a kid, when I was a "butcher's boy", I knew that when riding my bike delivering the weekly meat, I could always expect tips from the dwellers of the council estates, not much, but they couldn't afford much.

It was the rich end of town which gave nothing. Which is why I suppose, they became, and remained, rich.

Ali

Your anecdotal experience, while possibly accurate, isn't necessarily relevant to the original link in the thread, which was a generosity index in philanthropic giving, not tipping in the service industry. Philanthropic charities rely heavily on major gifts from major donors, who are the people in the upper income ranges. Those people, from our perspective, aren't nearly so miserly as they are selective in what they support, but they do tend to lend their time as well as money to support a wide variety of philanthropies.

Also, while your anecdote may have been true when you were a child, keep in mind that attitudes may have changed over the years. I don't have access to a history of philanthropic giving, but no doubt it has increased over time. Much has to do with the increase in proactive fundraising efforts.

Nope, Ksdb, my experience has not changed.

But, I admit I know little of the American charity situation.

However, isn’t it true that in the US a charity donation can be a tax write-off?

And, which is more representative of generosity; a thousand dollars from someone with an income of a million, or 50 cents from someone who struggles to feed their kids?

And doesn’t the restrictiveness of the donations of the lower income levels perhaps indicate that it’s done with more thought?

But you’re probably correct, my post has little to do with the original line of the thread.

But, I’ve never seen a thread on here yet that can stay on track for more than one page! LOL

Ali

Quote (ksdb @ Nov. 22 2004,17:06)
Quote (TomS @ Nov. 22 2004,15:49)
the more money people have, the more they seem to think they deserve it and others don't. That's empirically confirmed by a whole lot of studies. And by the experiences of many here, I'd bet. :)

I've worked in a nonprofit fundraising organization and these observations aren't very reflective of our experience. We receive philanthropic gifts from across a wide range of economic levels. Maybe our giving base is unique, but across the board, we rarely see this attitude you mention. The main characteristics we notice are that people on the lower end of the economic scale are tighter and much more restrictive about giving and the designation of their gift. The upper end of the economic class tends to spread out their gifts in as many ways as possible, but are very willing to share their 'fortune,' and they tend to be extremely humble, avoiding excessive publicity as much as possible.

Sure, that sounds totally plausible, but it's only one case and hence not a good sample, and amounts to anecdotal evidence. Also, you wouldn't see the attitude in those who give with a good heart, rich or poor.

Seems to me that "philanthropy" is too narrow a concept on which to base the kind of conclusion Pete drew originally - we need to look at transfer payments of all kinds, for there are many ways to make sure that wealth move where it is needed. All would be evidence of compassion.

I also think I made a mistake earlier - there are rich republicans who control the party and its policies, and then there are working class and poor republicans, especially in the south, who are republicans as a result of what happened with civil rights, and then there are evangelical republicans (and some other classes too) - these are distinct groups, with different motivations. Similarly there are different classes of democrats. My guess is that those things are more predictive of concern for those in need than is political affiliation.

Toker, I used to teach in a graduate program in interdisciplinary studies, one semester we looked at issues concerning poverty. One of the sociol psychologists brought in a mass of data on that point. Distinct cultural differences, having to do with the necessity of reliance on others. :)