http://arstechnica.com/...arch-suggests-it-does.ars

interesting study. Too bad such a study if it concluded say "black" people or "poor" people were less ethical would be condemned as racist or mean or the like...

Generalizations or quantifications of differences between different races or classes are always bad, oh unless they say bad things about
A) white people
B) rich people
C) men
D) sometimes asians...

let's see. 1% are wealthy, but 6% are criminals. hmmm. doesn't seem to add up.

So we're catching 84% of criminals before they get too rich to fail?

That's an A- isn't it?

LOL. what's this "we're" stuff? it's me against y'all.

Libs need to stop crying about the wealthy and get their asses off their chairs and EARN it, oh ya, forgot, you are ENTITLED to it...

qz ain't a very bright fellow when you really think of it.

qz needs his mommy to pop her titty off of his mouth...(waits for the ban)

Heh who said I'm not earning money? (well actually as of today I'm not, I just finished my contract heh)

I'm probably in a better spot with respect to my earning potential than most on this forum... I'm definitely not well off currently, given I just finished my schooling late last year, but I have the potential to be -- though not of "the 1%" (unless we manage to make EE expand like WoW)

Also the article didn't say that being unethical meant you were wealthy, it said the opposite; that being wealthy made you more likely to be unethical.

and crest: what does brightness have to do with it exactly? sounds like you're yet another conservative apologist for "the 1%"

I am in the 1%, so yes, I apologise wholeheartedly. Ok, I'm not yet in there, but I sure as hell will be.

I lived in an apartment complex when I was in college and I cannot tell you how many broke kids were leasing BMWs because they wanted to feel rich.

No matter how much most people have, it's never enough.

qz, I feel like you're stating it in a misleading manner. The tests were for correlation, not causation. They made no pronouncement that being wealthy MADE you more likely to be unethical. They just found that wealthy people have a higher statistical probability of being unethical. Perhaps unethical people have a higher statistical probability of being wealthy?

@crest, since you saw a few people living outside their means, that makes qz less bright?

Did you read the article? It said everyone in BMWs were rich. I say hell no.

Did you read my question? You said qz isn't a very bright fellow. I say hell no.

The article didn't actually say that. The article was explaining the assumptions that went into their methodology so that way people would be able to assess some of the uncertainty in their results...

The assumption is seriously flawed. Common sense tells us the assumption is flawed. We all see it around us everydayday in real life, people living beyond their means. Qz makes a post making a false claim using a flawed assumption and he is a bright fellow? He might be bright, but is seriously lacking in common sense.

Why do you think the assumption is flawed? I'm sure they accounted to some degree for your "living beyond their means" theory; still, someone who is leasing a BMW while living beyond their means is better off than someone who is living beyond their means leasing a honda civic. How much does leasing a bmw cost anyway? only people i know who drive BMW's actually ARE fairly well off.

and i'm not making a false claim, just copying a somewhat exaggerated headline almost verbatim ^^

everyone in a BMW is richh...lol follow them home and see the house they live in that has the roof sagging in doors hanging off the hinges, plastic for windows.

The driving in traffic observations does nothing but defined aggressive driving as Unethical, or lazy drivers then as ethical.
Maybe the one in a hurry is getting somewhere that makes him money thereby creating his Higher SES.
though on the other hand maybe the one going slow and observing all the Best rules of the road is because he has so many warrants out he's afraid to get pulled over for anything, including his driving without a licence or insurance.

And then overcharging, kickbacks, bribes, and stealing lumped as equals some might be illegal and some might be legal.
Is charging an extra dime for a product then it can be bought elsewhere get defined as over-charging? or is getting 20 million to sit on the bench a whole season count?

i never had that problem

-"The researchers argue that "the pursuit of self-interest is a more fundamental motive among society's elite, and the increased want associated with greater wealth and status can promote wrongdoing." However, they point out that their findings aren't absolute, and that philanthropic efforts such as those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet buck the observed trend, as does research which has shown a relationship between poverty and violent crime."-

I think it's inherent in all of us, at any level of society. Those "in poverty" that don't understand the fundamentals of money/economic cycles have the same tendencies, but rather that exploiting an employee, they find an unattended vehicle with an unlocked door, or an unsuspecting passerby. They're not doing it for the thrill. They're doing it in "the pursuit of self-interest."

Life is struggle. It's a struggle to the top of the pile and ethical violations take place at all levels of it.

$0.02

I know a group more unethical than wealthy people could ever dream of being: government bureaucrats.

FTR: Personal opinion, not the opinion of Omega.

I would say that managers who get massive payrises (qantas ceo Alan Joyce springs to mind, 2 mil payrise whilst laying off thousands of workers because the company isn't profitable enough) is DEFINITELY an example of unethical behaviour. Banks who gouge customers by ramping up fees and interest rates whilst setting record profits, is an example of unethical behaviour, etc etc. at work, we are currently having staff shifts dropped because we aren't making enough revenue compared to our labour costs, yet at the same time, they've put TWO new managers on who came from another outlet the company owned that went broke. for the same prices as the two managers they could have another 4 staff at least working the floor where the numbers are needed. none of these managers has taken a paycut, only the staff. once again, unethical behaviour imo.

@Drow:

Agreed. Typical activity of a corporate sinking ship. Get the officers up on high, and screw the crew. I often wonder why they recommit managers of failing outlets to other struggling outlets and expect a different result...Or maybe they don't.

It's almost like putting a President in office after he bankrupts five oil companies...What could go wrong??????

Banks are setting records for profit because they just up and create credit. Did you not read the thread a little while ago about how banks create money every time a new loan is created?

being wealthy will make me unethical!! lol

hey when i get rich i'm gonna ball up an wad of 100s and chuck at at some poor guy's face. I'll give 2 choices, to take that money and walk or try to sue me. I'll have my own lawyer to countersue him with something stupid lmao!!

money is created everytime you deposit money lol. Banks have the authority to lend out 10x what actual cash they hold. So every $10 you put in the bank can lend back $100 and charge you interest lol.

Um guys, banks create money because when I put in $100, they lend out $90 to Joey. Joey's loan ends up getting put into banks and another $81 is loaned out to Brian...then 73....

They can't lend $100 for a $10 deposit. What they can do is make loans that then get deposited with them and are used to make more loans that are deposited with them which make more loans....

You are incorrect there; 10% fractional reserve means they only have to have 10% (in actuality i think it's slightly less than that) on hand of what they lend; so a $100 deposit means they can lend $1000 against that

lol isn't that what i said?
you can check the all publicly traded stocks of banks and see what their actual cash holdings are vs loans.

it is what you said, yep

Inb4 Bill Gates is a philanthropist.

hmmm, i need to become a bank. so, i have $10 and i lend $10 to 10 people and they each pay me $11 back. so, i have $120 and i lend $10 to 120 people and they each pay me $11 back... bah, this math stuff sucks...