Monday, October 07, 2013

Period 6- Article of the Week- Due Friday

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/rich-people-just-care-less/?src=mv&_r=0

1.  Read the article.  Consider the author's tone, structure of the essay, and your personal reaction.
2. Please add an intelligent comment (minimum 3 sentences) in response to the linked article from the NY Times.  Be sure to reference specifics from the article.
3. Optional: Comment on a classmates post in a second post (minimum 3 sentences)
*Use only your first name, last initial and class period.

26 comments:

  1. This article was clearly related to poverty and financial inequalities. Goleman mentioned that it’s normal to have social differences in every community but the social differences can act up in a negative way. Today the money that goes to support the people in poverty comes from the pocket of the rich ones. Without them, the government alone couldn’t take care of the poor alone. I think it kind of make sense for the wealthy people to act mean and rude towards the people in lower social position as their money is somehow wasting in the poor, (in the rich’s view). I can understand where the mean looks of the rich comes from but I don’t know about empathy. Maybe the difference in finance leads to various opinions and feeling of empathy. It makes sense for the poor to feel more compassionate and grief than the rich. Since, the less fortunate has less to treasure and which leads to more love, care and affection towards what they only have or own at the moment. Losing a loved one is much harsher and emotionally and mentally impacting for people with less power. Probably, the wealthy ones have several other possessions to take care of, after the divorce or death of loved ones. But, I do believe that there are wealthy people who wholeheartedly support the poor and provide with charity. They sure feel empathy and kindness and show their care and concern. To conclude, some people despite being wealthy are caring and some aren’t. Similarly, it’s not difficult to find mean and impolite poor people who despise rich.
    Goleman does a good job in bringing up both viewpoints including the opponent’s. He wasn’t very argumentative and just laid the points out there for his readers to consider and ponder about. It was interesting how the environment and our surrounding influence us to act certain way towards people with different social standards. Some people are able to fight and behave and feel the way they want towards people in different social classes, while some can’t or don’t choose to.

    ~Shilpa R

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article discusses the social extremes of rich people. It makes us picture a snobby stereotype of rich people who we see in the movies and other various mediums that aren't exactly realistic representations of the entire class. Take Bill Gates for example, hes a multi billionaire who donates millions to charities all around the world. This article only truly gives people the worst of the worst view of the rich. #Sonny G.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In agreeing with Sonny, it is true that not all of the rich people in this world have to be snobby. This is a similar stereotype to when people say "the Irish are drunks" but in reality not all Irish people are drunks. This stereotype creates an unrealistic representation of what the Irish are really like, like Sonny said when these "mediums aren't exact representations of the entire class."

      Delete
    2. I am also in agreement with Santino. The welathy individuals of America are active contributors to society and only wish to effectively produce for their country. They do this by earning an honest living and passing on the core values of American society down to the next generation. Therefore, I also agree that this article is very misleading about what being wealthy is actually about.

      Delete
  3. The society in which we live allows for the formation of social classes. With that there will be discrepancies between the top most and the bottom most and even those in the middle. A common misconception is that those on the top of the "social ladder" are more rude and snobby and therefore, care less about other people. Although it may appear to be a trend, those in the bottom part of the social ladder may be just as snobby and rude as those on the top are believed to be. In fact, those at the top of the social ladder may also be very nice and kind. I believe the ideas that Goleman presents in his article is just a common stereotype and is not in any way true. Jessica M. P.6

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely with Jess's post about the common misconception of overly stressed social stereotypes presented in this article. This post goes hand in with mine agreeing on the note that people aren't like their groups. This article promotes the idea of judging a book by its cover. I like to stray from this habit because the shadiest looking person can be truly kind while the prettiest flower can be eviler than the devil. #sonny G

      Delete
  4. Mike Caminear Period 6
    After reading this article, I do agree that wealthier people have it less things to worry about in their lives simply because of the fact that they are more financially stable. However, this idea gives someone no right to say that wealthier people just don't care about others. Just because someone earns more money than someone else doesn't mean that they are not empathetic to their lives. In fact, it is extremely difficult to become rich by accident. In order to become rich, one must work hard, do well in school, and find what suits their interests so that their futures may be more secure. It doesn't lie in constantly relying on others to give them what they need.
    In addition, I feel that the author is trying to express a concept fromthe point of view of the stereotypical rich person. In other words, he wants to say that if you are wealthy, you don't care about people who are in need and you don't want anything to do with them. The last thing this country needs is another stereotype incorporated into the political views our society. Furthermore, I think that this article is sending the wrong message.
    Also we must ask ourselves, what is the definition of "rich"? There is really no concrete definition seeing as everybody should be striving for personal wealth; that is what will make this country more successful. In total I guess one could say that the tone of this article is off-putting simply because it makes it seem as if being rich is a bad thing, when it really is a good thing. It means you've worked hard, climbed your way through the business ladder, and earned a decent living.
    Wealthy people should not be seen as evil; they should be viewed as role models so that others will want to be like they are. This will not only better america, but it will also change the attitudes of Americans so that they want to become productive members of society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree when you say that rich people should not be portrayed as evil or snobby because they are just humans just like poor people, each with different personalities. And we should no judge someone's character just because they are wealthy or poor because that has nothing to do with a person's character.
      Ahmad Z Period 6

      Delete
    2. I agree with Mike that this article presents a highly stereotypical view of the rich which presents them as evil and unsympathetic people who want nothing to do with those of lower status. America was built on the desire to make money with the incentive that if you work hard you will succeed. People who have achieved this goal and made enough money to be considered rich should not be looked down upon for their success. While they do not have the same worries as someone living paycheck to paycheck this does not mean that they want to inhibit the poor from living a comfortable life and pursuing their own goals.
      Hannah Beatty pd.6

      Delete
  5. This article is trying to divide millions of people with different personalities under two vague personalities of rich being snobby and poor being caring. This articles clearly ignores the fact that every person reacts differently in a social setting and being rich and poor has nothing to do with it. This article states “Though the more powerful pay less attention to us than we do to them, in other situations we are relatively higher on the totem pole of status — and we, too, tend to pay less attention to those a rung or two down.” Unlike what the article says people don’t just change how they behave with others based on their wealth but instead they are the same around everybody because they have a distinct personality.
    Ahmad Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  6. Goleman's main point in this article was that people are less empathetic towards people below their own socioeconomic status. My main problem with this is that it doesn't make any mention to whether this attitude is a cause or an effect. In other words, is someone who is less caring more likely to find wealth? Is this just an extension of "nice guys finish last", or is it the power that causes people to care less?
    Goleman also goes on to talk about this topic's relevance in today's government struggles. I feel, though, that this puts a hole in the studies about empathy and powerful people. The upper class and the wealthy are the minority, and yet Obamacare, something believed to be a system of "caring", is supported by close to 50% of people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jackson Mariotti Period 6
      I fully agree with you. It is impossible to prove that being insensitive is caused directly by having a lot of money. To say that someone is caring is also hard to determine. The upper class is probably focused on saving the economy for everyone, but that might appear to some as being harsh. These people made it to where they are today by being cold and calculating, which could seem to be uncaring. You brought up some good points.

      Delete
  7. Leah B, Period 6- I think the author really is more looking at the stereotype of richer people in this article. Because, while yes, there are some rich people that look down on the poor and disregard them simply because they feel like their money entitles them to care less, you can't group an entire class of people just by some. For example, there are wealthy people who don't flaunt their money, they ride around in older cars and they dress just the same as the rest of us, and if they saw some one who was being robbed or harassed, would help them. There are also rich people who donate large amounts to charity, not always looking for recognition, but simply because they wanted to and they felt it was right. This is like judging an entire school based on one bad misbehaving student, yes they are a part of the group, but only a small part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely that the author is incorrect in making one general statement about rich people. This obviously isn't true, because every person is different. I have met people with money that are very kind and donate a lot to charity. I have also met people with less money that are much less empathetic. Don't get me wrong, it definitely can go the other way, too. The author was not wrong in saying that some rich people are snobby. But we should focus on the fact that not all of them are, and it is the attitude of a person, not their wealth, that determines their actions. Jessica L. Period 6

      Delete
  8. We live in a society with inequality - that is unavoidable. The author, however, seems to think that this is a bad thing. But in a capitalsit economy, there will be poor people and there will be rich people. It is not a bad thing to be rich. If you've worked hard and made a decent living, there is nothing wrong with that. The author needs to realize that the problem isn't about poor versus rich. By saying that all rich people don't care, he is probably creating more problems than already exist, by offending the upper class and painting an ugly picture of the rich in the minds of the poor.
    However, I do understand the general idea of the article. Goleman emphasizes that Americans need to care more about each other. It is true that some people are less concerned with others, while others are very empathetic. This doesn't necessarily tie into how much money you have, but what kind of a person you are. Goleman also seems too idealistic. Yes, it would be great if all Americans could be more sympathetic and care more about others, but the fact is, that will never happen. We have to concern ourselves with what we can change, and focus on boosting the economy, and improving the lives of all Americans.-Jessica L. Period 6

    ReplyDelete
  9. Miranda S. Period 6
    What makes a person rich? What defines a person as "rich"? Is it where they live? What they wear? According to the author, the rich "judges" the poor. Well I'll simply say, that if the rich judged the poor, why do we have philanthropists? Why do we have people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates donating millions and more to poverty? The rich simply doesn't get rich in a day, they work to get there. As a person living in the stability of the middle class, I can simply say that stability didn't come in a day for my family. My dad worked day and night to be the best he could be, his efforts now pay off to provide his home, my home, the luxury I live in. Also the author claims all the wrong messages, the rich shouldn't be seen so negatively. It is almost as if the rich are being criticized and accused of being heartless toward the poor. The rich are what is holding this country together; the rich should be future aspirations of the poor. You need motivation to push the poor to work harder, to end up on top. There is no way you can make top tier, unless if you work hard. When you are younger you can't simply let money come to you, you have to walk to money. If you are lazy when you are younger, and don't feel the need or want to become successful, then in the future, you will suffer. I hate to sound harsh, but that is reality. This is simply what evolution set for humans, the toughest and strongest survive, and the weakest die out. If the poor has no motivation to move up the totem pole, then there is no way or room for them to move up. The rich is fair enough to the poor, pushing room for new jobs, and for new innovation. The rich is helping the poor in many different ways, and regardless of Goleman’s article it is acknowledged that not all rich and poor get along, but I think it is more attitude than how much money you have in your wallet. All in all you can’t change a person’ attitude, and the way they act well it is something you’ll have to deal with, but don’t judge every rich person based on one person’s sour attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Christian Frich - period 6
    After reading this article I didn’t really get surprised by what Goleman writes. There is a known fact that there are huge differences in the US society, and that people who are more wealthy and rich often act like it as well. Very rare times people get rich without working, and when you work hard you often meet the same people as you by some point of time. This affects you in a way that changes your personality and how you could have been if it wasn’t for the fact that you were working. I think the difference between how the rich and the poor act around each other usually starts early, and then when the rich and wealthy has achieved what they wanted to achieve, they start to look down on people that hasn’t achieved the same as them. They started early with working hard and can start to think that other people just didn’t work as hard as them and therefore didn’t reach the same goals as they did. However, this makes no reason for not caring about people that doesn’t have the same “social status” as they do. However, I think they just doesn’t care because they don’t hang around with those kinds of people because they got their own social network and they know that they have achieved something that a lot of people don’t and they feel comfortable with themselves because of that. That's why they feel no need to interact with others, because they know that they have being working hard and done what should do, and they are just happy with the lives they have and how it turned out.

    ReplyDelete
  11. We live in a world in which social inequality is very prevelant. It has been around since the beginning of man, and I don't see that going away any time soon. However, I disagree with Goleman when he implies, throughout the whole article, that upper class people are snobby, and couldn't care less about the people below them on the social ladder. Now this is true in some cases, but not many. Goleman only points out the bad in the upper class, and never mentions the good. For example, JK Rolwing just lost her "billionaire" status because she dontated hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. There are many good, rich people out there who care, and Goleman seems to overlook that.
    Aidan Deane Per 6.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jackson Mariotti Period 6
    One disadvantage of capitalism is poverty. In our society, it is unreasonable to think that people will be equal in wealth. There will always be the rich, the poor, and the middle class. A rule of economics states that "an efficient market is not always fair." Our economy is very efficient, yet many people suffer from poverty because of that. All of this leads to an upperclass. This elite class might look down on others or show traits of superiority, but that does not mean they do not care. That is a generalization about rich people which appears to be biased. Let's look at an example; Bill Gates. Bill Gates topped the world richest people, so by the logic of this author, he should be extremely insensitive towards the rest of the human race. Yet, he has donated over $28 BILLION of his own money. He did not gain anything from it, and he was not forced to do it. How can one claim that the upper class does not care when the most elite donated away over a third of his life savings? Could it be that it is easier to hate the upper class because they have more money and people are envious? It is evident if one takes a deeper look at our social elites that they are not always condescending and cruel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This article represents a simplistic view of the "rich" in which the author presents the idea that those of a higher wealth and status have no empathy for those of the lower class. This is a general view on an entire class of people in which there many who have worked hard to earn their money such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, who both donated large amounts of their own earnings to charities to help those in need, is an unfair assumption based entirely on wealth and success. The goal of Americans is to work hard and become successful and those who have succeeded should not be categorized as unsympathetic based on what they have accomplished. Also, the author incorporates this stereotype into political views on legislation such as Obamacare, suggesting that the reason some house republicans oppose the bill to be a lack of empathy or the "empathy gap". This broad statement about those opposed to bills such as Obamacare poorly represents the actual political argument of the opposition, which is supported by more than just the wealthy republicans. A stereotype such as this only further helps to create even more division in our already divided government. Overall this is a broad generalization which looks to place all those of wealth into a category of lack of sympathy and willingness to help others.
    Hannah Beatty pd.6

    ReplyDelete
  14. This article talks about how people in society view different social classes. Some people might look at the upper class and see them as very rude and that they don't care because they have money. This isn't always true considering people sometimes give their money to charity's and are willing to help the poor. You can't look at a couple examples and automatically say everyone rich person is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Honestly I took offence to this article. The New York Times should never have posted an article that stereotypes a class by their wealth and claims that they show signs of not caring as much as people who don't have as much money. Even though I am not wealthy myself I still think that the NY Times should know better then to write something that ultimately spreads resentment against people of a higher economic class and divides our nation. Many people whom have had good fortune in their lives donate a lot to various charities, and while I understand that their are many acceptations, I think that people need to remember that a person's wealth ultimately belongs to them and not the community.
    Our nation to an extent has been built on the dream that a person can become wealthy and yet, once a person actually does become wealthy it seems as though the rest of the community verbally attacks them because they do not give enough of it away. It's a contradiction.
    -Shoshanna Longo

    ReplyDelete
  16. I thought this article did not have enough proof for my own approval. The experiments they got their information from seemed very subjective, and not everyone expresses themselves outwardly in facial expressions. While it is obvious that people who have not experienced any kind of financial distress probably do not completely understand those who are in poverty, saying they are unsympathetic is an extreme. There are many wealthy people who donate a large portion of their income to the impoverished, also there are people who keep all of their money to themselves, but to generalize them all into one group is not right.
    -Emma Pottenger

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jonathan W period 6

    I do not agree with this article; being snobby isn't based on how much money someone makes. There are so many rich people, such as Bill Gates and J.K. Rowling, who are extremely generous and empathetic. Having empathy depends on a person's personality, not how successful he/she is. This is a just stereotype that really isn't true.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I highly do not agree with this article. This article doesnt show any proof. The ariticle just basically says how high class people have no empathy for those in the lower class. This is wrong. There are many celebrities who visit Africa, or other 3rd world countries, or even donate money for charity/ fundraisers. Also, the rich has worked to get the money and they shouldnt be forced to just hand it out to the community. It's their choice and their right of handling their money. Not all rich people are snobby. From donating money, do you think that the celebrities receive anything? No. Judging a whole group of people from one experience from one person isnt right.

    ReplyDelete