E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSYou do your job, you get paid. Life is good, right?
Unless you're a monkey -- and you see your buddy is getting a better reward than you for doing the exact same task.
Frans de Waal, a primatologist and Emory University professor, conducted an experiment on Capuchin monkeys about 10 years ago, which he dubbed the “Fairness Study.” During the study, two monkeys were each asked to perform a task for a reward. If you’re a monkey, a chunk of cucumber is an acceptable reward, but you know you’re really keeping up with the Joneses when you get rewarded with grapes.
In the viral video, uploaded to YouTube in May, the first time a monkey completes the required task (which involved handing a lab worker a small rock), he is paid with a small chunk of cucumber. But then the monkey discovers his buddy is rewarded with a grape -- valuable currency in the monkey world -- for doing the exact same job. Well, that wasn’t going to fly. What was going to fly were chunks of cucumber as the first monkey, now green with envy, pounds the table in protest and rattles the walls of his cage.
"So, this is basically the Wall Street protest that you see here," says de Waal, referring to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
De Waal as his colleague, Sarah Brosnan, published their findings in the journal Nature in 2003. The video from May has gone viral, with more than 1.2 million views.
Joy Jernigan contributed to this report. Dana Macario is a Seattle-area writer who, like the Capuchin monkeys, has been known to have a case of the wants now and then.
Leave a Comment:
CMP (Capuchin Monkey Party) 2016 - they're clearly smarter than the Republicans.
Too bad they didn't give them tasks with varying difficulties, some needing some prior education. I believe the republican monkey would have been outraged when they shared his reward with the other monkeys after doing a more difficult task.
What a great response!!!!!
Unless the Democratic monkeys realized that, despite all that book-learning at those high-dollar universities, even a half-brain dead slug could do the Republican monkeys jobs even better than they do, as is so often the case in the really real world.
Indigo-Rage Spoken as a truly uneducated person. Good luck with that rage thing.
Arguing over whether repubs or dems are smarter than the monkeys is fairly ridiculous considering they're both flip sides of the same monkey-brained coin.
Gmk
In a way I agree with you. However, being a woman and after training men for the same job I was doing and then having them paid more for that exact same job and being promoted over me (one time when asked why I was told that 'he was a single father' I replied 'and exactly what is my son, a Shetland pony?'), it is most certainly an issue. I had the exact same education, more experience, excellent job reviews and 9 outstanding service rewards. I finally had to threaten a lawsuit to get my pay. But after 15 years or so of the low pay (half my working life) my SS and retirement have been impacted. And this is true for the vast majority of women. Most of us just don't realize it until its too late. The upshot of this is that more women live in poverty after they retire and the public picks up the tab if they qualify for food stamps etc. hence the Lily Ledbetter Act. You know, the one the Republicans refused to renew last year?
Also, while I'm not saying someone who works behind a desk and makes the decisions shouldn't make more but exactly why should a CEO make 1000x the pay as a worker who is out digging the ditches, building the homes, plowing the fields, etc. - you know doing the hard physical work?
I don't think anyone thinks everyone should be paid exactly the same. But the people who actually run a company should realize that they really are nothing without their workers and that their company wouldn't even be there if not for people actually doing the work. This country built a strong middle class and the most vibrant economy on the planet when unions were finally able to demand and receive good pay, benefits and working conditions. Guess what, even the old robber barons (who had been soooo against it) found that their companies did quite well. Why? Because there was now a set of consumers who could actually afford to buy products. That's why Henry Ford raised his workers pay. He thought it wasn't right that the people making his cars couldn't afford to buy one. A real man of vision.
The mantra should be equal pay for equal work and fair pay for all. Just because someone is a janitor doesn't mean they should work for slave wages so the CEO can have a second vacation home. A fair, minimum wage that allows for life above the poverty level is too much to ask??
So they found out that monkies get jealous..... There needed to be a study for this? Ever see 2 dogs together and only give one of them all of your attention? The other dog becomes jealous and barks and jumps on you and is saying "hey man, me me me me!"
But, way to go professor. Good job, I guess.
Hey real simple if you do not like your Pay & Benefits then go somewhere else.....
Fairness? More than likely a preference for grapes. When the monkey refuses the cuke and says, "get me a f'ing grape or I'll close down LAX on Thanksgiving eve" then he can make that assumption with validity. Until then he's just a high priced opinion.
Scientists, the new High Priests of the Temple. They say it, you'd damn well better buy it.
dsb - I don't know where you were working, but maybe you should have looked for a different job.
From what I've seen in the business world, hourly people are generally paid according to a set scale, and salaried people get pay according to what they were able to negotiate for, and especially, how badly the company needed that person at the time of hiring.
I know men who made less than women simply because of the negotiation and need of the company.
Where are all these supposed cases happening? Do you have specifics and stats? These sound like a load of BULL$HIT to me aimed at more class warfare.
dsb
Very thoughtful post. There will always be outliers such as the janitor versus the CEO but very few of us fit in that category but often the argument is made around these outliers. I for one and well educated, have done my share of intensive labor to sitting in the big chair. I am rewarded fairly and above ave average but nothing extraordinary. I just want to be able to tell my children/grand children that education and hard work do pay off for incentive purposes. Without that, we are no better than the European countries now in crisis. Luckily, the glass ceiling is no longer prevalent where I work and I only hope for that to be more the rule rather than the exception as we move forward.
Of course the Democrat commentors would side with the monkey; afterall, they're about equally intelligent, and hate the fact the Republicans have most of the money. But remember, Libbies, we're willing to actually go out and work to get all of that money, rather than relying on handouts from from President Santa Claus and his merry band of welfare elves!
You animals can fight about ur parties that don't fight for u.
I for one realize that when the people around me are doing well, so am I and so is our country.
Henry ford said make the best products possible at the lowest cost possible paying the highest wages possible.
Abraham Lincoln, Henry Ford, and Albert Einstein this is the mix I think we need.
Henry Ford also realized that in order for there to be a market for his cars, his workers needed to make enough money to buy one! Today's CEO's want people to work for free, then wonder why nobody can afford their product.
It's a good thing these monkeys weren't on the ballot. The Liberals would of had a problem voting.....
@dsb
The mantra should be earn what you are worth to the company you work for.
@!$%# YES!!!!!! When will you libs accept the FACT that min wage does more harm than good. The fact is that just 3% of the workforce earn min hourly wage or less (this includes those making additional comp such as tips or commissions btw) so the market already sets a higher wage for most people. The people who aren't making min are undereducated and under experienced working in jobs suited for such people, basically those jobs aren't worth more than they are being paid. So what happens to these people when their wage is artificially raised? Many of those jobs will just disappear leaving those who need a job the most without. If you have little education or experience you need a job to prove your worth so you can advance. You can't work your way up the ladder if a min wage law prevents you from getting your foot on the bottom rung!
Min wage laws INCREASE unemployment, mainly amongst young people. This is a fact. Higher min wage means higher unemployment. Tell the guy who goes without a job it's a good thing that he lost his job so the guy standing next to him can make a few bucks more. Good luck convincing him that a "minimum wage that allows for life above the poverty level" isn't too much to ask.
Actually, as far as that is concerned, Democrats have "most of the money." Liberal voters tend to be more educated and in higher income classes. Here's a discussion you will never find on Fox News:
http://www.progressivepolicy.org/2011/03/more-college-graduates-more-democratic-voters/
This study is interesting in another way as far as fairness is concerned. By and large, the Democratic, blue-leaning states tend to be donor states and, paradoxically, the states that complain the most about taxes are the ones that are the recipient of tax dollars: http://taxfoundation.org/blog/why-do-some-states-feast-federal-spending-not-others
The idea that Democrats are takers and Republicans are givers is a complete myth. If a clear delineation can be made, it is the other way around.
Okay, so clearly the Republicans are dumber than these monkeys.
Let's hear it for the new third party in the US:
The Capuchin Party. Slogan: "No more GOP monkey business"
@dave-735909
Bull @!$%#!! Henry Ford didn't start paying his workers well until competition forced him to. He wanted the best product and realized he needed the best workers so he increased their pay and introduced the 8 hour work day/40 hour work week (30 some years before the UAW btw). It had NOTHING to do with making sure his employees could earn enough to buy one of his cars. Surely you can't actually believe his workers represented even a fraction of a fraction of the market for his product.
For the author to bring in Occupy Wall street is ridiculous. This has more to do with (2) people in the same company doing the same job and being paid differently (Occupy Wall Street people are not suggesting that they are doing the same job as CEO's and being paid less.)
Nothing to do with Democrats vs. Republicans, Ironically who get paid the exact same for doing similar jobs (Senators vs. Senators, House vs. House, and one President's wages as compared to the last). Both fulfilling the same role and job requirements.
The liberal monkey is in the back refusing to work, then expects the worker monkeys to give him half of their grapes since he's had a tough upbringing and its not fair.
And women, maybe leaving the office all the time to pick up kids from school and the added days off (women take a lot more days off than men) you take is why you are paid less. Equal pay for equal work Im cool with. Equal pay for the same job runs parrellel to unions screwing over good workers for bad. Its not always the case, but companies pay you what you are worth to them. Now bring on the misogyny screamers.
Byron Raum
Poor people OVERWHELMINGLY vote dem so I'm note sure what your point is.
http://andrewgelman.com/2007/10/some_cool_graph/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-went-2008-election-looking-only-at.html (map graphic was down when I posted but here is a quote- "The most striking pattern is our estimate that Obama would've won almost all the states, if only low-income voters were counted.")
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/12/red-versus-blue-in-a-new-light/
Hey, anyone in the "everything's fair" crowd - can one of you answer this?:
The President of the United States made $400k last year, adjusted gross income of $789,674.
Mitt Romney made $13.7 million adjusted gross.
What did Mr. Romney do "earn" 17 times what the President made?
Was he worth $13.7 million to our country's economy?
Anyone?
Sorry Lee, they ran in the Republicon primary. (spelling intended)
gmk: I believe that response is directly from the "Republican Book of Excuses", page 103.
Shall we compare credentials? Perhaps I should ask, how many Fullbright Scholarships have you been awarded? Which years did you attend Rhodes? Standford? MIT? Where's your MENSA pin?
Your grammar alone suggests you were barely awarded the highly coveted Good Enough Degree (that's G.E.D. to those of your substandard mentality).
You can always take the gmk out of the trailer park, but you can never get the trailer park out of the gmk.
You, sir, are a boor.
And for those who say "anybody can be rich if they just try:
NY Times, January 4, 2012:
Dave:
If that were true you couldn't use the race card.
Happy Thanksgiving - nothing like a good "poo fling" about repubs and dems.
@RealAmericansFirst
hmmm, let's see. Romney risked his wealth by investing it in companies to the benefit of us all. Obama racked up as much National debt as GWB in half the time.
Looks to me like our Presidents are GROSSLY overpaid by comparison.
RealAmericansFirst,
Romney has saved more jobs than Obama, has helped save numerous companies like Staples, hasnt trampled on our rights with the NDAA, and being allowed to take away people's citizenships, he didnt drive up our debt by almost 5 trillion, and he has made a budget every year, something Obama has never done. Yeah, I'd say he has done a hell of a lot more than our comrade and chief.
It works in reverse as well. I am a man and was being paid $9.50 an hour and when I was promoted they hired a woman at $13.50/hr to do half of my old job and a guy at just under my old salary to do the other half.
The funny part is my boss felt he was saving money because he knew my real value was greater than all 3 salaries combined. As a result he got crap work from all 3 people. The woman was dumb and after a few years, she was fired. It took her replacement (an older lady) 2 years to clean up her mess. The guy quickly left the company and I felt unappreciated, tried less, and later left.
People: don't be timid during interviews. Go in with a salary in mind and stick to your guns. Ask for a raise if you feel you're deserving.
Managers: you promote low production, high employee turnover, and employee theft when you do not compensate fairly and properly.
@Indigo-Rage
Boor- noun- 1. A person with rude, clumsy manners and little refinement.
Surely you see the irony in that the definition of boor perfectly describes your post? Or should I rather say the hypocrisy?
Noun:
Here's another one I can't understand:
Republicans insist that corporate tax rates can't be raised because they'd "just be passed along to consumers".
Republicans insist that unions cost jobs because they raise the price of the goods their companies make.
Yet when a CEO takes home $20 million a year, they claim that it's nobody's business because he "works for a private company".
Is it insanity? Or doublethink?
Anyone care to bet all this bullsh!t was done with taxpayer money? A grant to keep some useless liberal professor afloat.
Backcountry164 and MrBurns:
We're talking about 2011. Mitt got $20.6 million the year before that, and who knows how much in the other 9 years since he claims to have left Bain Capital.
So how did he do ANY of the things you mentioned in 2011? Do you have any evidence that he created even one job for that $13.7 million?
The answer is "NO". I know you know that word.
RAF,
You know what capital gains comes from right? It comes from investment. What does investment do? It gives companies money to build up their business. No investments, no growth for small companies. Im sorry you dont make as much as Mitt for bitching on the internet. Companies are allowed to pay their workers what they feel they are worth. CEOs bring connections and business opportunities. If the board of directors are not executives in the company, they can give money to the top brass if they feel that they are worth it. If they are both the CEO and on the board, then there is something to be said there.
Really man, basic economic and statistics classes would really help you come out of the dark ages.
Ok, I was cool with the standard party back biting and random stats all the way up until Indigo wanted to go after the "Good Enough Degree" thing. Are you Implying that you are better then me because you have been a Rhodes Scholar? Are you implying that someone is less then you because they have a "Good Enough Degree"?
I earned mine while I was serving in the Army. The reason? I dropped out of school because it was boring. After leaving, I got a job. A few years later, joined the Army at a whooping $669/month salary. So you're implying that your job had pay equal to this (by the way, break this down...you're on duty 24 hours [669/30=$22.30/24=...WOOT!!!! $0.93/hour...SCORE!!)? Your implying that our men and women in uniform deserve that? You're implying that your job has that kind of stress? Oh, and incedentally, I was at first (at my request) infantry (yeah, try living that lifestyle during war time on that pay >.>). After changing jobs because of cutbacks and reorganizations, I was awarded one of the most technical jobs the military offers in communications. At the time, the next highest technical job in the military was in the nuclear program. So what's up with my "Good Enough Degree"? Who the hell do you think you are? Know your audience.
The fact is, I'd love to meet you face to face so we can compare brain pans for a little while. The superiority attitude enough kinda shows me some of the reason you probably never got that promotion or had to threaten legal action for it. My education has very little to do with my ability. The human mind is a funny thing. Studying in a school will never be a better teacher then experience will. If you understand the basic workings of something and are willing to put in the work to learn how to do a thing, you can become better then the most advanced educated in any field.
My college education is in two different diciplines, Engineering and Project Management. I breezed through Engineering because of my military experience. Project Management was a bit more difficult because of the nature of it, and still was not that much of a challenge BECAUSE of the leg up that my experience in the military (which I will always be proud of!!!). Before I had even finished my first degree, I was a supervisor at an industrial facility and being moved into project engineering because of my experience and leadership. So please, tell me what your (whatever) education did for you that my experience didn't get me.
Superiority of education has not one damn thing to do with those who actually do work hard! If nothing else has been learned from the past 4 years and the next 4 years, we should have at least learned by now that you can be ANYTHING you want to be in the United States if you are willing to put in the hard work to get there. Abraham Linclon said it best, "work hard, get what you want. Don't work hard, get what you deserve."
@RealAmericansFirst
It's actually so incredibly simple that I can only assume your ignorance is willful.
With one you WILLINGLY pay for something, no one forces you to buy products from a company with an overpaid CEO. With the other money is FORCEFULLY TAKEN from you whether you choose to support what that money is used for or not.
If I don't like how a company spends it's money I can choose to not support that company. If I don't like how the government spends it's money I'm just @!$%# out of luck.
Now, come back and tell us all that you actually can't tell the difference between the two.
@RealAmericansFirst
Well now I see your problem; you don't have a clue how investments are used.
Did Romney create any jobs with that money? No (we won't taken into consideration all of the people who actually work for him). But how many jobs were created by companies who used his money to expand or retool??? How many fewer jobs would there have been if that money were not available? He earns money because there is risk involved with these investments. If you can't make money doing it why take the risk? Would you put a nickel in a slot machine if you knew the best you could hope for was getting your nickel back?
We want people to invest their money. Don't assume that doesn't make sense just because you are unable to comprehend the reasons why.
Mr. Romney spent his adult career in the business sector creating and saving tens of thousands of jobs and being smart with investing.
The better question is what did Obama do to earn the 400,000+ perks we paid him?
JD -1203795,
Dont worry man. I went to UCLA and I learned that sometimes you have to go to college to become as dumb as someone like Indigo is. Gets a few "facts" in him and extrapolates everything to get a theory on everything based on nothing.
Oh Indigo-Rage.
I may be a bore but you are quite the comedian. Reading your posts shows how little you know so you would rather attack the messenger rather than the message. Although that tactic worked in the past election, it does not work well for you as you are not gifted enough to make it work. Thank you however for wondering if I have the numerous scholastic achievements you suggest. No Ivy League for me, just a humble post-graduate degree at a Big 10 school. Thanks for asking though!
Backcountry164: It must be nice to be so self assured that every opinion you have is a fact. Limbaugh argued against raising minimum wage from $5 to $7.25 an hour with his point that only 3% of workers made minimum wage but ignoring that raising it would elevate the wages of almost 20% of workers who're paid slightly above minimum wage. As another article pointed out Walmart workers make $8.81 an hour and most with families are eligible for food stamps and medicaid costing us over 1 billion a year. That's not right.
The history channels show about those who built America does a good job explaining how the great robber barons built unimaginable fortunes with 1 worth 665 billion in todays dollars while paying near starvation wages of $1 a day with millions living in shanties around all major cities. The riots, unions and government safety nets including minimum wage ended that. Just because high unemployment would force people to work for $2 an hour rather than starve doesn't mean that's right or just. In Australia their minimum wage is $17 an hour and their economy is stronger than ours. Our most prosperous times were after WW2 when most jobs were unskilled blue collar jobs with most paying 3 to 4 times minimum wage. Just because their are times workers outnumber jobs is no reason for people to be exploited.
@Larry-367607
2 dollars an hour? You're @!$%#ing joking right? If we'd all make 2 bucks an hour without a min why don't we all make the min now? Why should I even waste my time on someone who has to use BS rhetoric to try and make their point?
It would be awesome if we all lived in this utopian fantasy land some of you libs dream about. Where people can make 20 bucks an hour flipping burgers or scrubbing toilets. Unfortunately reality just doesn't work like that and we'll all be better off if some of you would join the rest of us in it.
The higher you raise the min wage the more low paying jobs just disappear. That is a fact whether you find it to be "just and right" or not. Only in the mind of a liberal is not having a job at all somehow preferable to not getting a "fair" wage.
How this compares to the OWS is beyond comprehension. Typical liberal BS comparison. And while your blaming the repubs for unequal pay, look at the Dem administration's pay inequalities on the white house staff.
Most OWS want everything for nothing. Stop trying to brainwash those of us who know better that they actually want to earn their keep.
Typical GOP ignorance of the facts. The fact of the matter is that more Welfare goes to red states than blue states, and only the intellectually challenged believe that the majority of people collecting welfare want "free stuff". Basically the argument you present is simply subterfuge. You're either too bitter, greedy or stupid to understand the real facts of social assistance.
Proof that isn't a blog post?
When put on the spot, GOP Holy Man, Mitt Rmoney responded to "How do you address the issue of unequal pay between men and women?" with:
"I hired plenty of women on my cabinet when I was governor. I asked [...] and was given binders full of women."
But no one had the b@lls to ask:
"But Mitt, did YOU PAY THEM the SAME as the MEN on your cabinet?"
Clearly the answer would have been:
"Well, no, they're women."
Rel56
It's a perfect analogy because it has nothing to do with "fairness" but rather jealously. If one monkey has been doing the task longer or better he would deserve the grape but monkeys, much like the OWS crowd (in more ways than this one obviously), would have no ability to comprehend that fact. They would just see someone else with more so they throw a tantrum and throw @!$%# around. Makes perfect sense to me.
@Indigo-Rage
When you have to make up responses, and edit out quotes to make them fit your argument, you know you have a loosing argument.
If what you said was true, you would not have to resort to deception.
When you don't know the difference between 'losing' and 'loosing', you know you have a losing argument.
'Loosing' is not a word in the English language.
@mailman8
Sure it is. It just doesn't mean 'losing'.
Are you saying that because I have a spelling error, my point is invalid while his (or her) point is?
Fairly judgmental of you to think I don't know the difference between lose and loose. I'm sure you've never made a spelling mistake either.
mailman8...
loose: /lus/ Show Spelled [loos] Show IPA adjective, loos·er, loos·est, adverb, verb loosed, loos·ing.
adjective
1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end.
2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night.
3. uncombined, as a chemical element.
4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose.
5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms.
dictionary.com
@drano-2462756
Wrong.- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html
If you're going to mention "facts" maybe you should actually get some.
...more welfare per capita goes to red states.
What the Bakers Unions again??? I wonder if these beast can bake Twinkies???
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States
As you can see, the recipient states are, by and far, the red states. California pays the most and receives the least, followed by New Jersey and New York.
Facts are important, no?
@Kevin D-289686
Still wrong- http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html
The facts are right there, I've posted the link three times now. If you're just going to ignore reality please don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Probably a correlation between those states with better educated populous and less welfare recipients.
Funny how they vote Republican anyway. People are their own worst enemy.
Byron Raum
Yes they are. For example the FACT that your link does not represent welfare and the fact these numbers are skewed by the fact that many of the red states are large with small populations and many of the blue states are small with large populations.
For example, it doesn't take a rocket scientist (or a monkey scientist for that matter) to realize that a state with 1,100 people per mile of Federal highway are going to get more funding per capita for maintenance than a state with 14,000 people per mile of Federal highway.
But of course facts can easily be skewed to represent anything you want them to. Only when you are willing to sort through the BS do you get to the real truth of the matter.
@Byron
I can go to scribd and post a document that says anything I want, does that make it true? It's no different than google docs... try finding something from mainstream media, or a government agency (with a .gov address).
Backcountry,
I love that you are dominating these libs with facts. They spew out statistics then twist them to show something completly different. I think everyone should have to take statistics in high school or college. There would be a lot less liberals.
And you guys do realize that there are democrats in red states right? So when the moochers in those states try to take more, and the state tells them to find their own way, they cry to the federal government and bring up the race card or any other card they can find, so they can continue to take.
Well, it's easy to "dominate" if you don't understand the "facts" you're using.
When you look at how much each person in red states take from the federal government vs. how much each person in blue states get, you can see the "true facts":
Red State Socialism
@RealAmericansFirst
So people in red states "take" but people in blue states "get". LOL!!
Dude, you're such a political hack you wouldn't know a "fact" if it jumped up and bit you in the ass!
Again RAF,
Government spending is not all welfare recipients. If you have 5 people in a large state, and 10 in a small one, they both need 1 road. But per capita, it will cost the large less populous state more.
California has a third of all welfare recipients. And we rely heavily on the rich for income (taxes). So even in California, the liberals mooch off the successful.
backcountry - may I ask how you know it's specifically democrats taking the lions share of govt welfare assistance?
I wasnt aware that when requesting govt assistance, one had to identify their party affiliation...
so im just curious how you absolutely, no doubt about it, know how the stats break out on who's got their hand in the cookie jar (and that they even vote at all).
@Backcountry164
That link that you posted three times does not mention welfare per capita. Heck, it doesn't even calculate what % of each state's population is on welfare, just absolute numbers. I've seen it before, and it's not very useful for red vs. blue state poo flinging.
As has already been stated, blue states typically have higher populations than red ones, so (assuming a similar usage rate) would have more people on welfare. Blue states are also wealthier on average, so can support more comprehensive assistance programs (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income)
Not saying you're wrong, just that the evidence you're presenting doesn't support your argument. California, with ~10% of the U.S. population and ~33% of U.S. welfare recipients (assuming MrBurns is correct) does seem to have a disproportionately high % of people on welfare.
Jessica-1170252
WTF are you even talking about? Where did I say anything about democrats?? You know what a state is right? Becasue that's what we've been talking about, red state v blue state. You understand that some states lean democrat and some republican right? The states that lean left have the most welfare recipients. That is a fact as shown by the link I have posted numerous times. Are you attempting to deny this proven fact?
So basically you're suggesting that the fact that the bluer the state the more welfare recipients it has is just a coincidence? Maybe those 1+million people on welfare in California are republicans who don't vote. Sure, that makes total sense. /sarcasm
@McGee-9to5
No but I've done the math myself to be sure, otherwise I wouldn't post it. If you don't verify the facts you are presenting someone else will come along and throw them back in your face. There is nothing worse than being proven wrong by your own sources.
In this case California, New York and Pennsylvania have half of the nations welfare recipients and you don't have to look up any population statistics to realize they don't have anywhere near half the nations inhabitants.
@backcountry
What u said makes perfect sense with a warped analogy. No one has a problem of someone else getting paid more for better performance or longevity. The problem is in the inequality of how much more pay it is. Something that has gotten out of hand with each passing year and decade. That is one of the reasons why wealth is so concentrated. I guess u wouldn't understand that.
@Backcountry164
Touche sir, although I'm not sure I would group Penn with the other "true blues" since most consider it a swing state.
In any case, since welfare is a state benefit it makes sense that benefits offered would vary depending on the politics (and wealth) of each state. It's interesting to compare those rates vs. the number of people on food stamps - a Federal benefit. For example, in CA over half the people on food stamps are also on welfare, but in Mississippi, on the opposite end of the political spectrum, only 5% of the people on food stamps are on welfare.
@rkb5555
How have you managed to con yourself into believing there is a difference? You have a problem with people who make more; whatever excuses or qualifiers you use beyond that point are irrelevant.
Your link shows total welfare recipients which of course would be higher in higher population states. The only true data is comparing per 100K as the following does.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_wel_cas_tot_rec_percap-caseloads-total-recipients-per-capita
here here REL56!! thought the same thing. comparing apples to oranges. Thought this was going to be a comparison of men vs women pay for same job. that is the true comparison, not deadbeats wanting same pay as someone actually doing a job
Read "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut, Jr.
Everyone in that story is the same, by law (except for the government handicappers who even out everything.)
The ideal pay equality would be for different people doing the same job with the same productive output. Employees receive a portion of what they produce for the organization (company, non-profit, government agency, etc.) When employees have negative output (take more than they produce), the organization does not survive in the long run. Since reality is far from ideal, there can never be pay equality (or perceived pay equality.)
Only the self-employed get paid what they are worth. Their pay equals the amount they convince other people to pay them.
Wrong T-Day,
On average, men focus more on their careers than women. Not all, or even most. The average pay, is just that, an average. The company pays you what you are worth. If you leave work early all the time to pick up your kids from school, you are not going to make as much as someone sacrificing all their time to do extra work. There are inequalities that should be addressed but equal pay for equal work is different than equal pay for the same job, which women seem to be clamoring for now.
And republicans are smarter than democrats... what does that say about democrats?
Determining someone's worth in many instances is completely subjective and that is where inequality comes in. Equal pay for equal work is different but it too is highly subjective and can get out of hand.
Rel and T-Day (why am I not surprised at your monickers?) I'm guessing logic is not your strong suit. Even had the article said anything about human pay inequalities, which it didn't, you STILL wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Only the willfully blind do not see the inequality in pay --and on the job promotions -- for the same work not just between men and women, but between white and non-white. It's not like we're lacking in studies tracking the trend for the past half a century. Conservative, liberal, non-partisan studies -- the data's pretty equal across the board, just the "explanations" for the discrepancies differ. I suggest you look at the data in nursing first, since the pool of male nurses is so small.
And BTW: REL -- it's the red states that are getting something for nothing and sucking the blue states dry. Get your facts straight.
T-Day -- that would be Hear Hear -- as in Listen and agree -- not Here Here, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Yep. Only ONE Red State (Texas) pay less in taxes then it receives. As a New Yorker, I always chuckle when I hear conservatives use the deadbeat argument, because they don't realise they are talking about their own constituents!
(NY gets $0.80 back for every dollar it pays in Federal Taxes)
Eevie,
Maybe logic is not your strong suit. The article said nothing about inequalities in pay as you talk about but did specifically compare this study to Occupy Wall Street which T and Rel were discussing. Maybe you should try reading before jumping all over someone else.
Also, what facts are you referring to in which the red states are sucking the life out of blue states? 4 of the top 5 welfare recipients are Blue states by $ and per capita.
What do you expect from idiots with single digit IQ's that receive all of their information from BS mountain?
case in point.....
@Eevie
If you still believe this even after it has been thoroughly debunked you should not be questioning others ability to use logic because clearly you can't or won't yourself. "Facts" are rarely found on lists of political talking points.
@backcountry164
BS....red states take more than they give. This isn't BS mountain where you simply say things three times, spin on your heels and it becomes fact.
@drano-2462756
But that doesn't mean they "take something for nothing". This money includes federal spending on infrastructure, ag and energy subsidies, trust payments to Indian tribes, spending on military bases and defense contracts and a whole host of other Federal spending. If we are talking about "taking something for nothing" than the blue states have a corner on that market. There are more welfare recipients in California, New York and Pennsylvania than the entire rest of the nation combined. Now THAT is "taking something for nothing".
Some red states GET more Federal money than they receive but if you look at actual facts instead of just BS talking points intended for the sheep you see that reality isn't quite the way the dems are spinning it. So whether you will admit it or not YOU are the one climbing "BS mountain".
How about the NY times that so many liberal worship?? Are you saying that is "BS Mountain"??? - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/25/us/20090126-welfare-table.html
So if single digit IQ's come up with actual facts where does that leave you for refuting them?? With a negative IQ??
Interesting point, no? So you are actually admitting that the taxes that you pay go to the infrastructure to support your nation? And that they are not just being "stolen" from you by the government.
Beyond that, though, your point is that the federal tax dollars are being spent on agricultural and energy subsidies, infrastructure to benefit red states. Perhaps you do not realize it, but THAT is what being a "recipieint" means. A subsidy, or infrastructure in Texas does not benefit a California taxpayer.
All you are really proving is that rich Californians and New Yorkers also support their poor as well as supporting Red states.
@Byron Raum
Really?? So when you pay 10-20 cents LESS per gallon of gasoline with 10% ethanol you aren't benefiting from an energy subsidy that was paid out to a red state?? When you pay less to fill your cart at the grocery store you are benefiting from an ag subsidy paid to a red state?? If you're traveling across country (the purpose of the Interstate Highway system) you aren't benefiting from good road conditions as you travel through red states? Energy from Federal dams is only used in the state that has the dam??
You seem like a fairly intelligent fellow, may I suggest you remove your party blinders so you actually start to sound like one?
Byron, put down the kool aid for a couple seconds and experience the real world. Republicans are for building infrastructure. The problem they have is having money taken from their paychecks to go to welfare rats. The amount of money we give to the habitually lazy is outstanding, And liberals cry about military spending, some 18% of our spending. lol.
I guess you missed the whole military bases part of backcountry's post didnt you? If you have less people in a larger state, more money is going to go to it based off the simple fact that they still need roads, water, energy, etc, and not everyone is all crammed together. When it comes to what state has the most leeches, it is easily the blue states. And you do know that there are liberals in red states right? Trust me, I come from California. We have a third of the nations welfare recipients, and we are going backrupt as a result. Money taken vs money given does not show anything about welfare. Please go to college so you can take a statistics class. They teach you how to properly interpret data, which you seem unable to do.
@Backcountry164
Seems your facts may be a bit dated.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/welfare-queen-states/2011/05/17/AFzTK45G_story.html
You seem like a party hack, may I suggest you remove your head from your ass...
Drano,
It has been explained over 10 times on this thread. Please actually read before you talk. You wont appear as ignorant next time.
drano-2462756
You do understand what an opinion is right? And that your link is one? That's why it says "OPINION" right at the top. And surely you realize that stating an opinion does not make it a fact? My point has been specifically welfare, only libs, as in your link, want to pretend that all Federal spending is the same thing as welfare. Welfare is welfare, paychecks to military personnel IS Federal spending but they are NOT welfare. Surly even you can see the difference.
As you said earlier- "The fact of the matter is that more Welfare goes to red states than blue states" I have proven this to be wrong beyond any shadow of a doubt.
LOL! What an odd request coming from someone who just inserted his head into his ass.
Someone needs to explain to the disgruntled Monkey that the other Monkey was a Job Creator.
Scratch that.
The other monkey would only be a job creator if he performed no work and his sole contribution was having all the capital.
Maybe the monkey who received the grape had special training, experience, or worked at a more profitable business. The cucumber monkey could have been new to the career, an intern, or somebody without the necessary mix of education and experience.
The cucumber monkey should take some personal responsibility and determine why the other one received a grape, and then figure out what changes he needs to make so that he can get grapes as well. And if this boss doesn't seem to ever notice him, then he needs to strike out and find new employment, change careers, or even start his own company.
Lot's of opportunity for the cucumber monkey at this point since he has little to lose and much to gain.
J I
What a wholly ignorant statement. Not a business owner with employees, are you?
Since it's so easy why don't you become a job creator and get rich. Then you would not need to be so jealous.
I would love for some of these OWS meatheads to spend a month shadowing somebody in a managerial position to completely understand what it really costs an employer to have an employee and run a business.
Lets start with the wages: All they ever focus on is the hourly wage. Well guess what? There are other burdens that go with an hourly wage like the employers tax burden on your income, workers comp insurance, liability insurance, benefits. The unseen costs end up being around 30 to 40% of the actual wage. So a $20 per hour worker is really $26 - $28 per hour.
Why executives and managers make more than the trench digging worker: The trench workers have ABSOLUTELY NO LIABILITY. Executives and managers bear all risk and are ultimately responsible for employee and fiscal well being of a company. They are exposed to any and all liability and lawsuits. Examples; Trench digger cuts a corner and something bad happens, he gets scolded or fired. The executives and managers get sued..... Trench worker sexually harrasses a co-worker he gets fired. The executives and managers get sued for not preventing it..... Trench worker is given safety training and specific safety instructions, but ignores them and hurts themself it is never the trench workers fault. The executives and managers get sued for not providing enough training or for not being clear enough with instructions. A company goes bankrupt, the trench worker gets laid off and finds a new job. The executives and managers get sued for mismanagement, have their assets frozen and spend a fortune of their own moey defending themselves.....
Thats why the "trench worker" doesn't get paid what that dirty executive in the pressed suit gets paid. Until the trench workers want to put some more skin in the game and our society stops suing for anything and everything, there will never be wage parity.
Do any of you OWS fanboys ever wonder why outside salesmen or even car salesmen are so driven and why you very rarely come across a salesman who is bad at their job? Because they have skin in the game. They are on commission and get paid on what they produce for sales. Try it some time...
And all those fanboys of the 1% ruling class - most of them not even being members themselves but hopeful that some day, some how they themselves will be wealthy...
Tell me: If the Free Market is so grand, why do corporations seek subsidies for activities such as research? Do they then share any profits as a result of the research?
Tell me: If the Free Market is so grand, why do we have almost daily stories about tainted food, tainted medicines, executive fraud?
Tell me: If the Free Market is so grand, why did it turn to Big Guvment to give it untold trillions to "bail it out"? And no, I'm not talking about the petty stimulus.
Tell me: If the Free Market is so grand, why have decades of deregulation & tax cuts not led to an Eden of productivity & wealth for all?
Mental Zombies. You know nothing of history and have no grasp of economic fundamentals nor appreciation for the fact that unregulated capitalism does not lead to "all boats rising".
It leads to a feudal system, with a few at the top calling the shots - and doing everything they can to prevent any trickle down except that which is absolutely required.
Explain this to me: What about that "golden age" in America when a single earner provided for his family, took vacations, and even was able to send his children for collegiate education? Hmm? Those were the good ol' days, eh?
So what happened? Tax rates are a shadow of what they were; Regulation is either severely crippled or the agencies are run by corporate executives (who will return to their regulated industry upon leaving "government service").
Shouldn't we be in a Free Market paradise by now?
You know, I have read about the OWS people. I have looked at their web sites. I have watched them on the news. I still have no idea what they want, or why they are doing what they are doing. Every time I think I have it figured out I find something that contradicts what I had just figured out. I have decided that they are merely bored, spoiled children who, instead of getting to work have decided that the world owes them for being born. And, if they can't find a job then invent one.
There are enough of them together, many with advanced degrees. Why are they unable to come together and figure and establish a business and make money? Instead of demanding that somebody take care of them; with their brain, talents, energy, and creativity they should be able to develop something spectacular.
Interesting bit about the monkeys though.
They are angry that others are successful, and want to leech off the workers as much as they can.
Note: These monkey didn't work for the food he got. The food was given to them and the keeper gave what he was willing to give to each one. Equal is not about fair it is about pacifiying greed.
Greed today is more about wanting what someone else has and getting someone bigger to wring it out of the rich them.
'Equal is not about fair, it's about pacifying greed'
Really?? REALLY?? So anyone who thinks they deserve the same pay for the same work is simply being greedy and it has nothing to do with fairness?
I simply do not nor never will understand the mindset of people who think this way. And unfortunately you aren't alone.
I know you won't understand, nor will you change your mind but it most certainly is about fairness. In fact I will argue that it's greed that makes one worker (or CEO, or manager, etc) utilize their workers for the absolutely lowest pay possible. Why else would Walmart refuse to pay their workers a living wage? So the Waltons (some of the richest people in the world) can have more? More what? You do know that Walmart actually held classes to teach their workers how to apply for food stamps? Those exact same food stamps Republicans complain we all pay for. So walmart's bottom line looks good and the rest of us pick up the tab. Yeah, that's not greed....
Well dsb, to answer your question "Why else would Walmart refuse to pay their works a living wage?" The answer is simple: higher wages mean higher costs, which means higher prices for consumers. Who are Walmart's consumers? Mostly middle and lower class Americans. This means that Walmart raises the wages of its employees only to increase costs for everyone else. Either way, "the rest of us pick up the tab." Be careful what you wish for, and take an economics class before you ask rhetorical questions.
dsb,
You realize that it was under Clinton (from the same state as Walmart) that China became our number one priority trading partner and Walmart went from made in America to made in China? Fact is, their workers are not forced to work at walmart, and many of the workers make more than other companies. They also hire the mentally retarded and elderly to do incredibly basic jobs to help them make money. People bitch about Walmart due to their own jealosy of success. No one makes you shop or work there, so stop whining.
Employers pay employees what they are worth to the company. Sorry that people complaining are worth less. Its probably the reason that they are worth less.
Razorback,
Why do higher wages necessarily equal higher consumer costs? Can you not touch the large profit margin put in place for the extraordinarily wealthy? How about a counter argument to get started: Let's say that higher wages produce more confident, productive employees. I hate stepping foot in a Walmart, because while a deal may exist on a gagit, I'm having to deal with an atmosphere that is somewhat depressing, and every cash register worker seems unhappy to be alive. I'd rather spread that wealth around a bit more (we're not talking mega bucks for each employee...let's get real), create a more positive working/shopping environment, where more customers want to shop, which creates an even stronger bottom line for all investors. Plus those workers have more take home pay now to buy the wants along with the needs, and help the economy out even further. I disagree with the mentality that the wealthy are somehow getting an unfair shake... and that everything has to center around creating the largest profit margin for the smallest proportion of employees.
Is the subject monkey really upset that he's not getting "equal pay", or is he just unhappy that the monkey next to him is getting a better treat that has nothing to do with the task they performed? Unless there is more to this study, the cause-effect seems pretty weak.
Getting something better is unequal. They wouldn't give the monkeys money!
Now if only the GOP could increase their intelligence to the same level as Monkeys, maybe things would start getting solved in Congress.
Solomon Kane
Now if only the blind partisan hacks could face the reality that their own parties are as much of the problem as the other, maybe we'd start getting some politicians in Congress who could solve things.
Instead we have a country half full of sheep who can do nothing but point their fingers at the other party while ignoring the reality that the people they actually vote for are every bit as bad. Bottom line, if you think the entire problem is the other party, whichever one that may be, you're an idiot.
We see this all the time, Male monkey makes more money doing same job as female monkey she tosses this up too. Boss keeps ignoring giving her another task as if nothing has been said. Also we are seeing it in all jobs market today, with this bad job market it is all in what the Employer wants, you have little to no bargining power. So at this point take the politics out of it. Unless all the Monkeys throw the food back and this will not happen they will just replace the monkey.
Lorrie, its equal pay for equal work. Not equal pay for the same job. Some companies have certain positions that are harder than the same position in another company. And you know that women, on average, take more time off work, leave work early more to pick up their kids, and are not as willing to work overtime and weekends as men right? Definitely not true for all women, but we are talking averages. And most pay goes up the longer you work for a company. It was relatively recently that women were almost the same percentage of workers as men. The majority of old workers are men, so they get paid more for their experience than both young men and women.
Maybe if you spent more time working on your career, and less time crying about made up inequalities, your employer would see you as a more valuable asset.
How many times was the unhappy monkey Pepper Sprayed, Beat, Cuffed and restrained for it's uncivil behavior after realizing he was being screwed? Just Sayin'
Why would a monkey be punished for doing what monkeys do? Also, did the monkey cause millions of dollars of damage and cause problems for the monkeys who wanted nothing to do with his tantrum? Just sayin'
Very good example of what our POTUS was correcting when one of his first orders of businees was to sign the Ledbtter Act to stop those GOP/Tea Baggers from discriminating against women to pay their lazy good old boys more for the same job. I have sent Mitt a copy of this video for him to review while pumping his gas.
Actually, the reason that men get paid more on average, is that they are more willing to sacrifice other stuff for their jobs, and the majority of older workers who have more experience are men, so they make more than young women and men. Keep making up false inequalities, its what you libs are so good at.
This whole article is apples and oranges, just like the studies that show women making 70 cents on the dollar to men.
Noe of those studies actually compares the same job, with two different people doing it. It is all based on averages. Well, on average, maybe women have less demanding jobs, have less experience or many other situations.
Yes, I know there is discrimination out there. Some women are denied promotions because "she is just going to get pregnant and take maternity leave anyway", or any other such lame excuse, but, this does not negate my earlier comment.
Man A got the promotion. Woman B did not because she is of child rearing age. The study will show that she is only making 70 cents on the dollar compared to the man. It wasn't because the company pays women less, which is what these studies are trying to show, but because he got the promotion.
Another point. Man A has been working for 20 straight years. Woman B took 10 years off to stay at home until her kids were in school. Both have the same education. The study will show that the woman earns 70 cents on the dollar, but not because of descrimination, but because of experience levels.
These studies need better scientific control to be believable!
You are just trying to rationalize your views. Read my post reply to the first post. It is a real problem for women and follows them throughout their lives into retirement because the result is less SS and retirement savings accrued over a lifetime. It also affects their children resulting in more kids living in poverty.
And yes, there have been studies. Research it a bit.
dsb,
Those research studies did exactly what skeptical said. They didnt look at the same work, but the same job. He is right in that women take more time off men, and are generally younger in this workforce. Both of these are lurking variables that make it appear like women are being cheat by being paid less. Some women do have legit complaints for being paid less. But much of it is drumed up to get cryers like you fighting against something that simply isnt there.
I think teekay34 is probably right. Had the experiment started with several rounds of cucumbers as the reward and then switched to one getting the grape, then maybe.... But if the grape monkey had been asked to hand in two rocks to the researcher and the cucumber monkey still complained, then I might think the association of work and pay would be missing in the first monkey and that all we're seeing is simple grape-envy.
I do hope those monkey's have a better habitat to live when they are not being tested. Amazing but dogs do the same.
You can imagine employers would have a lot of upset monkeys if everyone got to see what everyone else was making. It's taboo and sometimes against policy to discuss salaries with coworkers.
I wouldn't want to know because I might not like what I find out without any way to change it.
My wife spent years training men at a large oil company who ended up making much more money. The difference in income was pretty obvious to all parties.
zhovti sobaky - How long ago was this? Was she training them to do the job, but not doing the job herself? (As in, her job was to train the task, nor perform it) Or, was she working right along side them, acting as a mentor throughout the day?
Not enough information to form an opinion on this one.
Michael,
Thats how liberals operate. Just give you a few variables to make it appear like they are correct, and ignoring every possible lurking variable that disproves their bs.
Facinating indeed .. but why do the majority of posters have to equate something so interesting and funny to POLITICS as usual? Life is much more than politics so wake up and find something more to take to heart.
Kenneth Whiteheadvia Facebook
Why? Well as you point out "life is so much more" so the answer would seem to be- they do so because they have no life.
You better stick to working with monkeys. The Wall Street protesters don't work, they just want the grapes.
They told you that? ..and you were listening?
May dogs do the same.
Maybe the other monkey just didn't like cucumbers.
Read. Rinse. Repeat.
Talk about rediculous!!! How many tax dollars were wasted on this garbage?!?! I think it's an outrage to waste money on this junk science!!! Anyone with half a brain could tell you that it pisses people off to get paid less than others for doing the exact same job.
Where did it say there were taxpayer dollars involved? ...and it wasn't people they were testing.
It didn't mention tax dollars but, I am sure Tax dollars went to fund this study. How many studies like this get funded by our tax dollars? How about the study of yawning between people and their dogs? Another example of wasting time and money.
How sad that these monkeys are confined to cages for a really dumb study like that.
I think it is safe to say that the monkeys will not be looking for work at Wal Mart. But I did see one in the picket line but he was only there to return a pair of Jim shoes. HE didn't like the wages or the shoes............
The monkeys who are complaining are just having sour grapes.
Reading these comments I'd guess the majority of posters in here didn't even watch the video. The professor was making fun of OWS but MSNBC distorted that fact the way this article was written. barkingdog is right though, a shame those monkeys have to be caged for a useless experiment.
OWS should be made fun of. They have wasted almost two years and they have yet to present a cognizant reason for what they are doing. The spoiled brats need to figure out why their lives suck and do something about it. Standing around crying is not doing something about it. That is expecting somebody else to do something about it. Oh well, hopefully Darwin was right and these leaches to society will become extinct.
(In the last two years I earned a new degree and started a new career, purchased a house and have put my kids into better schools. What have they accomplished, other than crying about how pathetic they are?)
In the past two years I lost my job do to a scientific grant being cut. While I was unemployed I did receive unemployment benefits but volunteered three days a week while searching for another job. I eventually did find a job that now pays me about 60% of what I used to make, but hey, I'm a lucky one. I'm going back to school, adding to my savings, and searching for a higher paying job. But yes, how pathetic of me to believe there is inequality out there.
There is inequality, yes. But instead of sitting on your butt whining, and expecting others to take care of you have volunteered, gotten a new job, and am back in school. I fail to see where your problem lies. Sounds to me like you are orchestrating your own future, instead of crying about it.
Keep up the great work!