A single dollar is just as small to a poor person as it is a small person. In fact it could be even smaller. Because typically a poor person has a backlog of things they need to get done, and, yeah, a dollar is petty
@@BamBam_TYM how does it have anything to do with self respect if someone would come to you and say to you could you please take a dollar or I will lose 99 dollars Saying no is just cruel
The moral of the story is that the rich care more about ROI than morality. That was free money and J.P. blames the poor … intellectual gymnastics Olympics straight to gold.
@@maxk888 isn’t this what capitalism is all about? For people to able to accumulate wealth. Very simple , you are paid based on the value someone provides. Either you are an elite worker or you bring an elite good. If you’re mediocre then you get paid that. I promise you that if your are really good at what you do you won’t be getting low balled and if you are getting low balled find another job that does value you. To add to this with out these rich “assholes” there wouldn’t be no job for the mediocre people. In capitalism there will always be winners and losers and just like in anything else. 🤷🏻♂️
Obviously. Most people would rather lose a few dollars than allow someone to disrespect them. If you changed the amount to 100 million and the rich person gives you 1 million you'd take it, because 1 million is worth more than your pride
I originally would've "stuck it to the man", but the more i think about it... the more I think $1 is still worth it... if you can scale that $1 a million times...
You should understand in world of inflation if everyone have 1 milion you are not rich, everithing will just cost milion times more. Rich people will find way to control you
Do you know why the rich person always takes what ever they are offered? Because money is money. You say no you get nothing you say yes you get something. It's risk cs reward there is no risk in either situation so why not take the money it's free
@@saber5694 Rich people always take the money because it's surplus, not necessity. If the rich person takes a dollar and lets the other person keep the 99, it doesn't matter because they didn't even need it in the first place. It's a numbers game from their perspective. On the other hand, a poor person sees 20 dollars and thinks of a nice dinner or new clothes. They need money, and a dollar is negligable towards just about every necessity in this economy. They don't see it as "earning a dollar," they see it as being cheated out of something genuinely helpful, from someone who can afford to at least give them enough to buy a side of fries. You wouldn't record yourself giving a homeless person money, because it's a scummy thing to do. Likewise, so is treating someone in need like a gameshow contestant for the hell of it.
@@idonthaveaname8491 here's the thing saying no benefits no one have say no hurts no one. It cost you nothing to say yes to any offer. However it also cost the other person nothing if you reject the offer. The $100 isn't part of either of your budgets it's unaccounted money. Say no it means nothing say yes it means both get something.
Lol he prob knew this, it is taught in literally every basic economics class. I mean I’m a history major who took it for fun and I knew everything he was gunna say. This shit ain’t deep or new he is just famous.
Ok so Im glad someone else knows this game theory situation. So jp skips over the next part of the experiment when they take that 100 dollars and offer one dollar to someone in a 3rd world country where that one dollar changes their living situation for the day and they take the one dollar 99 % of the time.
that’s not the point, the point is of poor refuses, rich can’t get nothing either. relativity is a good theory for you to learn. Nothing about ego here, the mindset will lead you to be poor. If you get rid of poor and richs background, name them as A and B, there is 100 dollars for they to share, if they wouldn’t have an agreement, there is no cake for them. what solution you would offer. Yes, you choose half and half, that’s the only win win solution, nothing ego my friend.
@@StrategicWealthLLC social status is a zero sum game only when peole value wealth and fame, then of course only the richest and most famous are praised but that doesn't have to be the case, if people stopped being so shallow then real values would be being a good person and being financially independent, and then it wouldn't be a zero sum game
@@chris4231 - Chris, whatever it is that social status is (e.g. wealth, fame, attractiveness, intelligence, kindness, etc.), someone is going to be the best and someone else is going to be the worst. It IS a zero sum game.
My Psychology teacher once did a similar kind of experiment. First, he told half of our class to move out of our class so we will not be able to communicate with the other half. I have to move out as well. Then, he said to the students in the class to assign any marks out of 10 to his partner who is outside. The catch here is he himself will get 10 minus that number. So, if a student assign 6marks to his partner he himself will get 10 - 6= 4marks. After sometime the other half students will go inside and they can choose either to accept or reject. If he accepts he will get those marks, if he rejects then both will get 0. I got 3 which means my partner chooses 7 marks for himself. Guess what I did. I rejected and secure 0 for both of us.
First of all economy and math does not work that way, its psychology afterall, it tends to break rationale out of normatives. So.. having does mark values received or denied also does not effect anything at all. Its a test of people willingness out of no practical reasonings is what truely your teacher is evaluating..you should've not choose to comply and ask for clearence of the matter at hand
Similar, but not really apple to apple, because the end product is useless for you. The argument of, "at least you still get 3 marks," can't really apply here, because its out of 10, getting 3 might as well not attend the class. And you're getting 3 marks for something outside of your control, its moronic to take that while you have the chance to at least bring down a guy with you. But a dollar on the other hand, "at least you still get a dollar." can work, because that dollar can still buy you a meal from the dollar menu.
I assume this theory expressed to both participants that participant “A” is getting $100. Participant A will then have one chance to offer participant B any amount of money. It B refuses the offer, no one gets anything. If B is poor, they’re more likely to refuse a small offer out of spite.
@@sergioaugusto166 commenting as you did does not inherently make your point correct. Case in point, you are in fact, wrong. This is a perfect example of envy in reality. Perfect logic would dictate the $99/$1 scenario is a perfect one, as both parties are now better off. However, given the envy in our reality, someone would rather cause a small amount of harm to themselves as a way to prevent the larger in scale benefit to someone else.
@@matthewkafka9566 Its not about envy, but about greed. From the rich person. In real life a poor person gives money to another poor person in more need of money.
@@sergioaugusto166 it does reflect reality. If you have business and employees this is essentially what is happening. you're getting paid a certain amount without knowing how much the owner is making. If you knew how much he made you probably would ask for a raise. That happens in union strong countries like France.
This is kind of weird becaus I'll be happy with the dollar. I didnt do anything get the dollar and I dont want to be a dick because they may offer me money again and people give more money to people they like. I'm not poor or rich either.
actually true there is a ton of people resentful for being worked over by companies and corporations for a minimum wage, they feel like slaves chained and wiped sometimes they'd feel like they'd burn the world fuk it whatever the price.
No, whats going on is that the poor person wants more of the other persons money, beacuse he feels he "deserves it"....while rich ppl do what makes sense which is to take what's being offered for free because they aren't entitled to it and just greatful its being offered
They did a similar experiment with monkeys. If one monkey saw another monkey being given tasty fruit, but all it got was a nut- it would fly into a rage and try to wreck the experiment. Chimps don't accept unfairness...just like humans.🙂 Trust is what holds a society together. Without it, everyone feels justified in screwing everyone else over.
@@jackdonovan554 what you mean is the law and consequences is what holds a society together...without it, poor ppl will just TAKE by force whatever rich ppl have through earning, hard work, commitment and sacrifice
I agree. This is not 1903. So it’s not a dollar but 10K vs 90K; then what? As a poor person there is a lot you can do with $10,000 and remember say no and you get zero.
@@petergould9174 nah don't change the sum like that. It really comes down to principle. If the person being told the rules is the only one that knows the rules and the dollar amount, that changes everything. But if the second person knows there's $100 in the mix and they understand the rules, NOW there's a risk of offending them.
@@xmarine73 if u r a rich person and u go to a poor person and offer him 10 Dollar and at the same time he shows his 1000 dollars in his hand. U know even that 1000 dollars r nothing to him. So here is just a power play and sometimes the poor person only got their self respect left.
@@aurelius8180 I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. It sounds like you're arguing but I believe you said the exact same thing that I said... only much less clearly...
The social experiment that JP just illustrated is called 'The Ultimatum' and better version of that game is called 'The Dictator' in which the player has to offer either 1$ or 50$(1% or 50%) of the money they have. It is said that, at any given region, approximately, only 25% will usually give 50%. (From the book Superfreakonomics)
These are games and it falls under game theory. 100% some idiot did this to me during an economics experiment. So i just refused until we split. We barely made any money. Serves him right. The funny thing, once you switch sides, you tend to do the same and offer him $1 so that he now suffers as much or more than you did.
@@monjier okay then, you just lost alot of opportunity since you don't accept the 1$ . If you are the only one that accept 1$, everyone will want to do business with you. You don't need to spend any of your own opportunity and could do a major favor to every one. When it is your turn, you could maximize the return since you have given them the favor first.
Makes sense, I've been both the poor and the rich man. I remember turning down obvious low balls until I got the number I wanted. When I got money, I had friends who were financially struggling and asked for my help. They would offer a decent amount for the help they needed, I'd insist on nothing, but they usually wanted to give me something. I'm friends with more older folks than people my age. In the end I'd accept the smallest denomination they had, I made sure it was no more than a dollar. If possible, less. I had my reasons under both circumstances. When I was poor, I had needs and responsibilities that I needed to meet. I'm using the word rich loosely, not really rich just comfortable. But rich, I had my needs met, belly full, and entertained to my own content. So when someone asked for help coming from a place I've been, I helped while gaining little to nothing. Just made sense and felt right. I'll never be rich financially, but I'm content with where I am in food and funds. Now I work, and work to improve myself as well as what I can around me. Always do your best to put out good vibes.
See I went the opposite way. I struggled for a time, but now I refuse to help, because I had been there and I managed to dig myself out of it. I feel I deserve where I am and I have my own needs to be met. My money is for me and those I care about, Ive earned that privilege. I used to be very generous and would happily give out bills to people struggling who asked much to my friends dismay but I dont anymore. Interesting how experiencing struggle changed our perspectives differently.
It is, but I feel those I help are those I've seen help others despite their struggles. Like I seen one of my older co-workers donate money despite not having money for a proper lunch. I spent that pay period making sure they were fed. Though I have dealt with greedy people and see them everywhere. I work in entertainment and I see people everyday, and feel I have seen enough selflessness and greed to see who is deserving. Though I can understand where you're coming from. You give to enough greedy SOB's and once you see it, it jades you to the whole thing. Which I appreciate your commenting. I enjoy hearing about people and their reasoning for their decisions. Which I have no doubt you are deserving of what you earn and those who benefit from it as well are worthy of your kindness, I'm sure. May you and yours stay blessed, have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
@@eclips4638 that is true which is why the Rich person accepts it. He could care less what happens on the other end of the spectrum he cares that he gets money. While the poor person takes it as a matter of respect and says no
@@imaferretmaster The correct offer is 60. That will be accepted by virtually everyone. Rich or poor. Smart or dumb. You have to presume poor people are not smart about money. And that dumb people are dumb. There are a lot of factors.
I know a homeless man named Cliff once, and he’d come by the corner of the shopping center every couple days. He told me a plethora of stories of how people would pull out literal thousands of dollars in front of him just to give him one of them, and on those occasions he told me he would decline the money; look them in the eye; and kindly say “if you have that money and you can only afford to give me a dollar then you probably need this dollar more than I do” while the car scurries off. I respected him so much after this, and this clip immediately reminded me of what he said
Guys. If you learn to live without money as much as possible, you wont have to agree on 1 dolar. And if you dont accept it, then the rich guy is fucked. Rich person wont try to farm food.
the reason for this is that a rich person doesnt care for a dollar, a dollar doesnt hurt or help him, for a poor person 1 dollar is less worth then sending a message.
Everybody here just saying their version of moral of the story, and I was like, "What's this all about, I don't have enough information to conclude anything."
I think the meaning is the rich take out emotion when it comes to their money. So they arent going to be spiteful to the richer person taking more money. They sees profit and take it. The poor person knows how to survive on less money and money isnt everything to them so they refuse out of spite towards the rich trying to take advantage of their poorness.
@@brentvalente poor people are more likely to decline offers that they deem to be "unfair" which perpeutates poverty while rich people take whatever they can get even if it's not a lot which is why they end up with even more money. If I offered you 1$ and i get 99$ if you accept that might feel unfair to you but If you take it then you're still 1$ richer than you where before
I remember reading about a similar experiment done with college students in “Never Split the Difference” by Chris Voss (great book btw) proving that logic alone rarely sways people’s ability to make decisions. We are not rational creatures by default. Understanding human nature is so important
If someone with $100 relies solely on you accepting an amount in order to keep the rest, yet they only offer $1, they're not a partner they're an exploiter. The satisfaction of watching that exploiter go without would be worth far more than that dollar.
I've seen this play out IRL with raising minimum wage. When you raise it to the same as what the current managers get, or even just to the cap of the peer group, those at the end who know they aren't getting a raise, nor an increase in their cap get spiteful about the fact that they worked for it, and the new guys get as much or more than them with no effort.
@@Dinrad360 like this u manager, wage 2500$ Janitor, wage 1200$ I the boss The proposal, i the boss will raise the manager wage to 2800, but the janitor will have the same salary as you the manager. Logically on paper everyone would say, why not, its win2. But in actuality most people being the manager would rather stay at 2500$ rather than get a raise 300$ but the janitor get a 1600$ raise for nothing.
@@Dinrad360 i probably didnt explain it well. there is a substantial portion of people who, when faced with an opportunity to get a raise of say a nickel or a quarter, but also raise everyone below them in experience/position up to the same as them, who will oppose the raise because they feel wronged by it.
@@Kivlor They don't feel it is wrong, it is actually wrong. You will get punished by inflation now that the poor guy has more money. That is what is happening now under Brandon.
I’m all ready rich, but you wont get anything to eat today. That proves that rich people find and take every opportunity, although that opportunity was presented to the poor as well, they don’t take it for non economical reasons. Perhaps if they did, they wouldn’t be poor.
@@jerryy8383 Well, the rich people use that free 99 $ to manipulate the economy. So it it wiser on the long run, to refuse the 1 $ and help fight the inflation for everyone, which is more worth than 1 $.
@@jerryy8383o, there's such a thing as opportunity cost. The rich person had an opportunity to make $50 or perhaps even more but lost it because they wanted $99 which they didn't get. The poor person only had an opportunity to make $1 which isn't going to solve the problem of being poor, but rewarding someone who's attempting to screw you over with $99 will, in the long term, make the world a worse place for everyone as it encourages them to repeat that behavior. By refusing the deal, the poor person is not directly helping themselves, but they ARE helping humanity in general, by ensuring that people who are fair and who value equality are the most likely to prosper and proliferate. This has actually been borne out by studies in a Game Theory experiment called the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. In tournaments where different AIs with different strategies for how to play multiple iterative rounds of the standard form of The Prisoner's Dilemma, the most successful AIs *tend* to share four common attributes: 1. Nice (does not betray the other player first) 2. Retaliatory (if the other player betrays first, will cease cooperation) 3. Forgiving (will resume cooperation once the other player does first, since they have gotten even for the betrayal) 4. Non-envious (does not attempt to do better than the other player) HOWEVER if a tournament is full of betrayers, this strategy ceases to be optimal and constant betrayal becomes the only viable strategy. Thus, if you want cooperative people to do well, you HAVE to punish uncooperativeness so that betrayers don't come to outnumber nice people.
Someone did an experiment outside a dorm where they would ask people to help them move a couch into the building for a small amount of money or no money and they tried doing it with different amounts. $0, $1, $5, $10. They came to the conclusion that more people would move the couch for free than for $1 cause it’s such a small amount of money and you expect a certain level of service if they pay.
I'm going through this now. A friend is asking for some work, and I'd rather do a very basic, quick job for free rather than charge my normal (or even discounted) rate and be expected to deliver a high quality, time-consuming product they can't/won't afford.
@@poisn1300 If the other guy was getting $100 million and he offered you $100 . Who has the power in that deal? . You because you know how much he has to lose
@@pttimothys Ok I'll give you an example . I run a agency , I need your web design skills to make this deal worth $10,000 , I'll pay you $100. Will you take it?,
@@scorpion32 bruv….. That is exactly the entire corporate world we’re living in right now. How much is ur job worth monthly? $2k? $3k? $10k? You job is always only worth as much as the job market dictates… u will never truly know how much ur job is actually worth, or rather you would still take it no matter how much u know u supposed to get paid because that is how everyone else is getting paid!!! Take it or leave it, haven’t you learn that by now or r u like 15 yo and hasn’t seen the world lol.
Not sure if it's actually game theory. Game theory assumes purely rational actors, so it's what's being referred to when he says "economists say you should offer 1 dollar"
Maybe I don’t understand what a “classic” economist is, but economics is not so much the study of money, but the study of human behavior and relationships. Technically it’s the study of the allocation of scarce resources; but that’s like saying it’s the study of humans interacting with life. So any economist worth their salt will say the truth about this situation, that you should offer somewhere around 50% because that will get you your maximum return.
Because in order to be rich you have to have a certain amount of selfishness. And some people don't want to be rich they just want to share. Some people also dislike rich people for being selfish.
The problem I find most disturbing isn't the amount of money but the effect of people having a lot of it. Also how it was obtained but I digress. When you have an abundance of money you can literally change the rules for yourself and everyone else. I mean just look at the legal system. If you have a lot of money you can not only afford the best lawyers but you can and they do drag out court cases for as long as they can till the little guy can't afford to fight the case even if they are in the right. If you have enough money you can just dodge taxation laws all together. If you have enough money you can bribe officials and government entities to do your bidding at the expense of everyone else. If anyone thinks that rules and laws aren't being made behind closed doors to further the rich powerful peoples agendas then those people are naive. The number of times I've seen rich people get away scott free or with a slap on the wrist for things that would have the average man thrown in prison for a good portion or the rest of their lives is absolutely disgusting. All i want fairness across the board but money rigs the game on so many levels.
Because it's not just the first time. You offer 50% because of when you're the one who isn't making the offer. If you screw other people, you teach them to screw you over. If you let someone screw you over, you teach them to screw you over
@@Mushimiya you are wrong. Poor people are swayed too much by emotions that they are fine with gaining 0 as long as the rich get none. Poor people are wired to difficult to be in teamwork.
Not at all moral of the story if you are offered 50% or 1% if its profits you take it as a rich person.. a poor person wants their "fair" share.. and will bust the deal lol..
@@iamsobeautifulomg Ask the french revolution how it works out when you try and take your attitude. But the ignorant will never learn, will they, buffoon?
@@iamsobeautifulomgDepends on how many people stop working. The rich are more dependent on the worker, then the worker is dependent on the rich. That’s why the rich pay the state to force the worker with violence to keep working whenever they organize and stop. Happens all the time. Those rail strikes just a few months ago. The rail owners begged Bodenproben do something and he took away the right to stop working for the railroad workers.
@@WaddyMuters The countless revolutions and national strikes in history show that, indeed, the Ruling class need the worker, but not Vice Versa. All it will take is some good leadership and the capitalist system will fail. The people will rise when they are ready, and not a moment sooner.
They wanted crack money not food. Thats why i only give stuff to homless people when they ask for food or like a coffee and usualy am willing to give them a little more than they ask. " sure i can get you a coffee, Do you want a muffin with that?" They usualy glow up with gratitude, vs the one who asked for money wants alcohol, cigarets or drugs
@@DC-hw7fw i see how people act both poor and rich are miserable in different ways and different magnitudes, im rich cause poor people are stupid and so play themselves and each other, then and i profit off of them without even having to dirty my hands. Cry more
The point is. A rich person sees a situation where they can make money. Even if the other side makes more money. The poor person sees an insult and gets nothing. It's just good business sense versus bad business sense
@@sudanemamimikiki1527 Money can be a game or "investment opportunity" as long as you have enough food and shelter. It is not essential. If you don´t let me enough to eat, while sitting on full tables, it stopped to be a game and you making me into one.
@@nothingtohide8110 again, yoy are letting pride stop you from making any money. There is absolutely no real reason to deny a dollar when offered other than useless pride based on greed.
@@sudanemamimikiki1527 How does letting someone know they can get away with ripping you off make good business sense? It just means you'll get ripped off more often.
@@jonathanbrown6034 ripping you off? Mate there isn't any ripping involved. You could get nothing or whatever the other side offered you. That's it they don't owe it to you or anybody else to offer you anymore than what they want. Meanwhile Good business sense would state that you have absolutely no reason to not accept the money. This like someone giving you a dollar in change on the street and you get mad at them for not giving you more. It's just stupid.
You'd only think that because you know humans are irrational. If both sides were rational, the receiver would accept the $1, because that's infinitely more than what he started with. It's worth noting that this kind of irrational behavior is far older than humans. Chimps act this way too.
@@ryanorr4626 It's not inherently irrational. If you get a little into behavioural economics, you'll learn that humans not only derive utility from cold hard cash or other hard commodities. As social animals, we are inclined to value things like justice and equality and, in economic terms, derive value from it. Of course, everyone has a different preference for those values but different preferences aren't a new concept in economics. So while you might derive utility from the dollar you receive, you lose utility by seeing how much more the other person keeps. And keep in mind, while you did nothing to get that dollar and might as well take it, the other person also did nothing to get the rest so they might as well share it.
@@ryanorr4626 It's actually very rational. Human behavior is tailored to real life evnironment and not to artificial games. In real life people tend to interact with each other more than once. If one turns down a shitty deal, his chance of getting a better one in the future increases. Also guy giving shitty deals, on top of loosing his part, is risking reputation loss, so he's less likely to repeat that move in the future.
The end game of this discussion is that if you offer the other person the majority then others see your generosity and you are then viewed as the person to team up with which brings more opportunities and beneficial connections in the future !
It just means how fairness is way more important to humans (most apes as well) over unfairness in a deal. I thought to offer 50% when thinking about the question, since that's fair. And the person receiving, expects around 50% because that's fair. A sociopath will offer 1% because he thinks like a computer, and the normal person will reject 1% even if it will help greatly, because the humiliation is not worth the benefit. Evolutionarily, if you accept humiliation as a social animal, it sets a dangerous precedent that you will always be taken advantage of, and it's better to fight than to accept scraps.
No it' not. Additionally the idea of fairness is what keep poor people poor. You are not owed anything so if someone is offering you profit at no cost the most competent accept it and figure how to turn it into more profit will the poor want both to suffer.
@@DeusAmentiam , no, that 99% will be invested into new endeavors, lines of business and innovation adding opportunity and bettering the world. All of that give people the opportunity to make more money. The exact opposite of inflation.
@@Ashtor1337"Bettering the world" that's a good one! And how going 50/50 isn't bettering the world? This way both of you can invest and "better the world". But no ya don't want any of that, one should be the sole investor and reaping all the fruit for himself. Haaaaa, the rich, you always try to justify your immorality with word to big for you. You should check your greed, it show really.
my english is not good, so i will try :) The idea is: the greedy guy gets 100$ and ofers only 1$ to the other, to stay rich with 99$. But here we are, no one degrades himself for taking only 1$ while the other get so much (99$). So they say "No" and everyone gets nothing. Message is: dont get greedy if you get something for free and let others be rich.
@Fronzel Neekburm but human are not animals... doesnt mean i dislike animals, somehow i love them more than people. But still we are very much more than animals. we are able to be everything (also to be animal haha :D )
The principle is a rich person will accept any offer, even a dollar, becsuse he puts profit ahead of ego. The poor person will refuse a low offer because their ego gets in the way of even receiving free money. they get offended by the amount, even if it's free and their emotions get in the way of getting free money, even if they need it more than the rich person.
there's nothing dignified about refusing money just because someone else will get more than you do. that's just jealousy "if i can't have it, no one should" mentality
@@layyinahbtariffjohor4629 it's not just "refusing money" it's refusing a dollar. The amount matters. You can't get shi for a dollar. If someone willing made the pitiful offer knowing what they would get in return I would too refuse. You are a pampered person I can already tell
Not just greed though, fairness and spite. It's unfair that both you doing nothing gets him 99% of the money. So you'd rather both of you get nothing out of spite.
It's about fairness, you get utility (satisfaction) from penalising someone for treating you unfairly. That's why you might reteliate when your partner does or says something to you that you don't like 😜 So the trouble is that it's easy to measure utility or decisions in money, but we easily forget that it's not only about money.
@@BenChaverin Maybe I do live in a different system than you. I live in a capitalist society, the only system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in human history.
@@lostboys-niagarapartyband1915 sure it worked better than feudalism for a while... but people always make that claim, and never have actual data to it. How exactly did it lift people out of poverty? We had inventors before we had capitalism lol. Plus the reason you think that is because they lowered the wage for abject poverty to like nothing lol
“The poor person is more likely to refuse the dollar.” But that’s exactly why they stay poor… It takes humility to become rich, you must overcome your pride and take whatever gifts life bestows upon you. You won’t get everything today, but if you believe that you deserve it you must prove it by letting it come to you as it does.
@@jeanlouis1558 If you go down the corrupt politician or someone tied to them. There is also the path where you introduce a neat product or service to a group that needs it. If you sell 1 000 000 of something that makes people's lifes better for 30$ with 10% margin, you made 3 mil$. That makes you rich and you actually provided value.
Most rich people were already Born Rich. Imagine being rich and have no financial problem and just giving someone who's financially struggling $1. That's not humility, that's an embarrassment. And ironically, if you're talking about rich businessmen mind set, to haggle for more is the way rich people think.
It's that once you label the 2 players partners the 2nd player thinks of the money as being a shared pot between them and 1st player. So, $1 instead of being a free dollar is instead a loss of $49 dollars, and why would I let the guy that just took $49 dollars from me walk away with $99.
2 года назад
As a poor said once to a rich: "I rule in my hunger" ("En mi hambre mando yo")
The king then said, “Cut the living child in two, and give half to one and half to the other!” The real mother spoke up to the king, for her motherly instincts were awakened. She said, “My master, give her the living child! Whatever you do, don’t kill him!” But the other woman said, “Neither one of us will have him. Let them cut him in two!”
Our entrepreneurship lecturer has asked the same question to us, and in the end, revealed his answer proudly: “I would give 1 or 2 dollars, the other person will accept it if he is smart!” When I said it is not fair, he made fun of my logic. “You can never do business. If you are a weapon manufacturer, you sell to anybody, even if you knew that they will kill innocents!” I think his no-emotion mindset can work better in a ruthless business world (although not in this game). This lecturer has given his CV on the first day to us, which was similar to “… Mr. Lecturer has worked in a lot of companies in key positions”, which was counter-effective for the intent, and this also can be a sign that he is not good at empathy.
Not only a question of dignity also you also want to have a little integrity aswell. combination of integrity and dignity is a practical show of self worth and self respect.
How getting free money hurt your dignity? Remember you didn't do anything to deserve anything. Yet you were offered something. Why refuse or feel disrespect?
The 1 dollar is not worth the mental anger and resentment. I'd rather get my revenge for a dollar than to not lose out on a dollar and feel humiliated.
@@CatMelon12 and why would you feel so harmed to the point of a revenge. It wasn't your money anyway. Everyone won money in the transaction. What you are felling is ENVY
I worked for a very large family-owned company, they were billionaires, that were known to wine and dine suppliers to the max. When asked why they spent so much money to save very little, one family member said, "I will spend a million dollars, if I make a dollar on the deal".
I actually participated in an experiment in my university that basically replicated what Jordan have explained. They gave away REAL money and half of students decided how much to offer to the other half. I thought that everyone will exit the room with at least some money, but the number of people walking out with empty pockets was shocking (I got lucky and walked out with my fair 20 euros :) )
Yup, learned about this decades ago. People are quite willing to take actions or support actions that will hurt themselves, just so long as someone who has more than them is hurt worse.
your missing the point, the rich don't care about being given $100 or $1 because both amounts are inconsequential to them. raise the stakes to being offered 10,000 out of 1 million and the rich person will be more likely to refuse out of spite whilst the poor would graciously accept the life changing sum. so many people are conflating the moral of this story to be the poor are poor because they deserve it, that's simply ignorant.
It says something about our greed that we would turn down an objectively good proposition because we are upset that it worked out too well for someone else.
I assume part of the rules is your partner knows the rules. If they don't and you just randomly offer a dollar they will likely accept it. If they know the rules they will say no out of spite.
Nobody seems to recognise that by refusing the unfair lowball offer they are setting a standard for future transactions with that person. This is long-term logic. I don't need a measly dollar now, but by rejecting the lowball offer I'm training the other person to not be greedy in the future and thus ensuring that there will be better offers in the long run.
Yeah ! Rich become more rich and poor will gain a little. Rich then use his high wealth to buy essential resource and raise his price beyond the reach of one dollar. Gap between poor and rich is increasing, and middle class is dying out ! Stats say so...
From an economics standpoint, there's a difference. The person who is given $100 is allowed to make multiple offers to multiple people and as long as one person accepts, he's good. So he can start with an offer of $1 or $10 and work up until someone accepts.
