Being powerful makes you a worse person.
Now the above is a generalization, but it is a claim made by a growing number of studies. Multiple publications have found that the more social power a person has, the less they pay attention to those under them. Certain studies have analyzed five-minute meet-and-greets between strangers of different social standings. Those with more power exhibited dramatically fewer signs that they were attending to the conversation, like nodding or laughing. They were also more likely to be openly disparaging. Those with more power exhibited negative facial expressions, interrupted the conversation and looked over their conversation partners’ shoulder more often than those with less power. A 2008 study published by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Amsterdam buttresses the above findings. In the study, the researchers observed conversations about painful subjects, like divorce or the loss of a child, between two strangers. Following the same trend described above, they found that those with more power were less empathetic towards the trials and tribulations of those “beneath them.”
These findings do not indicate that every member of the upper class is a monster or even that most are, but that in general those with more wealth openly display fewer signs of empathy. David Keltner of UC Berkeley argues that the upper classes are so insulated from the stress and hardships experienced by people in the lower brackets that they never learn to empathize or even imagine what the lower income classes experience. While a poor person might rely on a neighbor to watch their house or children, a wealthier person can simply hire someone. This larger range of options means the wealthier person does not need to cultivate relations with their local environment, because they can use monetary contracts, instead of social ones, to achieve the same means. A common theme in cognitive neuroscience is that repeated exposure and practice are the basis of our conditioning to stimuli, and therefore our habits and reactions. Without practice, we do not develop the traits we may need in that area. The rich do not need to practice empathy every day — though most do anyway — so they fall behind in this category.
In our economy, where convenience is often bought at a premium — the so-called “first class/coach class” model of airlines has prospered and grown massively. In theory, this model benefits everyone involved: the upper class pay a massive premium to purchase a better flying experience. The airlines can use the high profit margins from first class seats to reduce coach prices and compete with other airlines, therefore benefiting consumers. Everybody wins.
Except now the two classes are separated not only by their wealth but also physically. There is no space or forum to connect and learn from each other. This type of business model has also permeated almost every sector of our society, including vacation packages, nightclubs, telephone hotlines, concerts and, with the dizzying rise of lobbying, campaign financing — as super PACs and the various avenues for unlimited campaign donation expose even our own government to this two-tiered model. From 2000 to 2010, lobbying spending more than doubled, rising from $1.45 billion to $3.55 billion. And in the presidential field, the New York Times just reported that in “perhaps the earliest start to big-dollar (fundraising)” a super PAC has fully aligned itself with Hillary Clinton and opened the door for those who are “eager to ingratiate themselves with Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.”
It is extremely dangerous for our country that both the government and our economic system have aligned to separate the rich from the poor in terms of physical interactions, treatment and even the rights each group is afforded. The invisible hand of the economy is arguably the most powerful force in all human progress, and, therefore, in how nearly all goods, labor and liberties are allocated. Our information-driven economy is highly biased toward those who can manipulate and use it: the wealthy, well-educated and well-connected. The only consistent counterweight to a market that promotes inequality is government. But now our government is systematically being bought by the same people who rose to the top of our staggered pile.
Our government representatives and our companies are adamant that they treat everyone equally. Regardless of what your request is when contacting customer service the common refrain is “dear valued customer.” Our congressmen always claim to fight for the little man — even as they pour champagne and orange juice for the three-piece suit or as they tug the food stamps out of the hands of the single mother. The sad thing is everyone knows that both our industry and our government are lying to us. It is the newest form of “separate but equal.” So how do we stop the rise of “economic racism?” There is no one answer, but there are many actions that would be progress toward that end.
Let’s close tax loopholes and institute the “Warren Buffett minimum tax” on the top earners. If we simplify the system and have an easy-to-interpret tiered tax structure, we could avoid the absurdity of Warren Buffett paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. Let’s actually have a progressive tax system in reality as well as in name.
Lasting change starts with the youth. Stronger public schools and early education would help lift up poor individuals. A school community service requirement for all public and private school systems would teach students greater empathy, as would a requirement of early and sustained social cognition classes in which empathy, listening, effective communication and other essential skills are taught. Aside from the fact that such classes would allow even the most diverse communities to be more cohesive, they would also improve post-graduation outcomes, as several New York City public schools have already demonstrated. As these schools have shown, there would be more empathy, better students and improved job performance.
From there an even bolder move would be to require one or two years of public service from all persons who turn 18 after this year. We could institute a public service system similar to that of Israel or Finland, each of which require civic or armed forces involvement. Mandating young people serve their country and others, and appropriately compensating them for the work, would cause a universal integration of the rich and the poor. If people were forced to be involved with their government, they would definitely do more to make sure it was better. We would fight fewer wars if those with power had children in the armed services. The racial integration of schools shows us that biases can dissolve and empathy improve. It may be the case that integrating the workforce will have a similar effect.
Nico Enriquez ’16 can be reached at nenriquez3@gmail.com. Angry response emails can be sent to sarah_palin@gunsforbabies.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
