SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Human beings largely object to income inequality and are willing to correct injustice—unless, of course, it rattles their status quo.
That's the conclusion of a recent study looking at how far people would go to redistribute resources between the haves and have nots. Participants fiercely objected to "when winners become losers and losers become winners," researchers note in the paper, published in the latest issue of Nature Human Behaviour.
Researchers initially recruited Indian, American, and Chinese participants take part in an experimental game they called "the redistribution game." The gist of the game was simple: Participants were given a number of scenarios that would redistribute a fixed sum from a richer person to someone poorer. Participants were told the original standing of wealth was assigned randomly.
In the first scenario, participants had to decide if they wanted to transfer two coins from person A (who already had four coins) to person B (who had one). Researchers note the "transfer would reduce inequality," (as there's less of a gap between them), but person B would end up one coin richer than person A, reversing their status.
In the second version of game, participants were asked whether they'd transfer one coin to person B (where person A ended up with three coins and person B with two coins). Researchers ran a third and fourth scenario that allowed participants to transfer coins from person A to B, where the outcome still left person A with significantly more coins.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Sunday July 16 2017, @10:37AM (2 children)
Many or most of the people having actively destructive effects on society would likely be less destructive if they had a basic income and a home of basic quality. If you force such people to do work that they are not competent at then their incompetence will have that net negative effect you describe. Further, if completely deprive them of all sources of income or a home, they will often be driven to crime which again is that net negative. Emotions of resentment, anger and hopelessness are also factors in this behavior.
Sometimes taking care of people at a basic level is simply the least expensive option for society.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Entropy on Sunday July 16 2017, @04:58PM (1 child)
We already give jobless baby factories on welfare free money. We can either spend additional money on "helping" a useless segment of the population, or on the most intelligent scientists in our population. I vote the latter, but the former is certainly more popular these days.
I'm not saying everyone in need is useless, but there's a certain significant segment of them that really seem to be. Just like there's a segment of the top wealthy that is actively destructive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @07:26PM
We also have sociopathic pieces of shit like yourself. Make no mistake, if we go down the chopping block route people such ad yourself will be given the boot.