On Thursday 13 Sep 2007 4:42 am, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: > well paid people are less likely to > be tempted by the same absolute amounts than poorly paid people (they > may be tempted by large amounts, of course)
I accept this as a valid opinion that you hold, but I would like to see more clear evidence that this is the case, because the statement carries interesting social implications. Imagine a student from India trying to do a postgraduate course in the US or Australia and is paying for himelf by limited money paid by his father and a part-time job. He has less absolute amounts of money than many of his peers and the people in his new nation and is therefore more likely to be tempted to cheat or steal. This would call for racial profiling as a way of tackling crime, and it would be right. Statistics in support of what you have said would be a real boon to any crimefigthing department. In fact in any organization - such as a hospital, it could be generally stated that nurses, physiotherapists, ward assistants, helpers and cleaners are more likely to be dishonest than the doctor who gets paid a lot more. The security guard who stands at the gate of any software company office in Bangalore could be automatically assumed to be tempted by money and is therefore a security hazard, and needs a camera watching him - but the person manning the camera needs to be paid enough so that he does not himself get tempted by higher absolute amounts of money. Surveillance can then be targeted at those more likely to be dishonest could it not, rather than the more honest doctors and executives. Since they have the money to pay for the surveillance in the first place, and the clout to protest more loudly - I believe this may be exactly what is happening. shiv
