--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was just reading in the Times about Richard Grasso, > who, making $12 million a year, went through all kinds > of contortions to obtain his $140 million retirement > package. > > At some point in the accumulation of wealth, money > ceases to be a medium of exchange and becomes something > entirely different, having to do, as Bhairitu suggests, > with ego and power. Your attitude toward it changes > in a way that makes it literally impossible to empathize > with the person for whom, say, fresh blueberries are > a luxury they can't afford. > > You no longer have to make choices based on what > something costs. Money becomes an abstraction with no > practical consequences in terms of what you do with it, > except those that have to do with how much *more* of > this abstraction you are able to accumulate. > > When rich people talk about money, they're talking > about something entirely different from what poor and > middle-class people mean when they talk about it. > They might as well be on different planets.
Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my speculations. However, I assume your thesis is not a universal one. That is, when you say, "when rich people talk about money, they're talking about something entirely different from what poor and middle-class people mean when they talk about it." I assume you don't really mean all rich people. There are ample cases of some if not many wealthly not being much phased by wealth. Warren Buffet, as I recall, still drives an old Volvo and lives in a middle class home in Omaha. Many of the net and PC fortunes are driving foundations and lead "jeans based lives". I know and am aware of those of wealth who are more down to earth and empathetic than most. So while Paris Hilton makes a great case against inherited wealth, and it being associated with low social consciousness and shallow maerialist values, such are not universal among the rich. (Was it Paris or Nicole who asked, "Whats Walmart?") It appears you are confusing correlation with causation. There certainly is some degree of correlation between (often sudden) wealth and shallow values among some nouveau riche. But it is clearly not an overwhelming and universal trait in all, perhaps not even in a majority of cases. (Particularly sudden) wealth does not create shallow values, low empathy with the non-wealthy, and low compassion, even if a moderate correlation can be shown in some cases. Nor can strong social values, strong empathy with others, and expansive compassion be shown to be caused by lack of weath. Here the correlation is quite weak I would suggest. I can think of an abundant of examples where shallow values, low empathy with others, and low compassion are quite manifest among the non-wealthy. (Take this list for example. :) ) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
