Online research in philosophy

This paper defends a regularly paid basic income as being better equipped to tackle unfair inequalities of outcome. It is argued that the timing of "option-luck" failures – in particular, whether they occur early in a lifetime of calculated gambles, and whether they are clustered together – may lead to a form of "brute bad luck," referred to as "cumulative misfortune." A basic income that is paid on a regular basis provides a way to prevent the emergence of cumulative misfortune, because the basic income at least partially replenishes the individual's ability to take the next calculated gamble. The upshot of this is a nonpaternalistic justification for an unconditional basic income that is paid regularly and is nonmortgageable. This has an important bearing on the debate between those who advocate a one-off endowment at the start of adult life and those who advocate a basic income paid regularly throughout one's life. The paper contends that a regular basic income represents a superior social policy because it prevents the emergence of cumulative misfortune, rather than belatedly attempting to compensate for its effects during our senior years.

In this short Essay I argue that we should assign more honor to lawyering for middle income clients. By this I mean that we should hold in esteem careers involving lawyering for middle income clients in much the same way we currently value careers in what is often referred to as "public interest" law. Instead of conceiving of a binary distinction between "public" and "private" interest law, we should think about jobs in the legal profession as falling on a spectrum, along which the public service dimension of a legal position is inversely related to the wealth and power of one's clients. Thus, my proposed model would see more value in representing poor people than middle income clients, but would also see more value in representing middle income clients than wealthy and powerful ones, especially when one is representing middle income clients against more powerful interests. This model, if adopted as an alternative prestige hierarchy among even a small group of the nation's law students, could have important benefits in steering the many socially committed students who do not secure traditional "public interest" jobs to law practice settings other than large law firms representing the nation's most powerful and wealthy interests, and at the same time increase the quality and availability of legal services for middle income clients.

In this study, we developed a model of unethical behavior intentions, collected data from managers of the private (n = 208) and the public (n = 307) sectors in the Republic of Macedonia, and tested our model across these two sectors. Results suggested that for both sectors, unethical behavior intentions were not related to the love of money and corporate ethical values, whereas irritation was negatively related to life satisfaction. Moreover, corporate ethical values were related to life satisfaction for the private sector only, whereas the love of money and unethical behavior intentions were related to irritation for the public sector only. Managers in the private sector had higher corporate ethical values, lower unethical behavior intentions, lower irritation, and higher life satisfaction than those in the public sector. There was no difference in the love of money. There were more bad apples in the public sector (34.85%) than in the private sector (23.56%). The strongest factor of unethical behavior intentions in the private and the public sectors was theft and corruption, respectively. Finally, for the culture-free (etic) model, the love of money was positively related to irritation. Corporate ethical values had a positive "double-whammy" effect: reducing irritation and enhancing life satisfaction. Unethical behavior intentions were positively related to irritation (a mediator), which was negatively related to life satisfaction. Our theory provides new insights regarding doing business in the Republic of Macedonia.

The average net income of physicians in the USA is more than four times the average net income of people working in all domestic industries in the USA. When critics suggest that physicians make too much money, defenders typically appeal to the following four prominent principles of economic justice: Aristotle's Income Principle, the Free Market Principle, the Utilitarian Income Principle, and Rawls' Difference Principle. I shall show that no matter which of these four principles is assumed, the present high incomes of physicians cannot be defended.

Beyond that point, an increase in income doesn’t make a lot of difference to people’s happiness. Americans are richer than they were in the 1950s, but they are not happier. Americans in the middle-income range today — that is, a family income of US$50,000-$90,000 — have a level of happiness that is almost identical to well-off Americans, with a family income of more than US$90,000.

A number of factors must be considered in facility location decisions. Recent research on job design suggests that the effects jobs may have on quality of work life and quality of life in general should be considered in facility location decisions in addition to other normal factors. The present study was designed to examine quality of work life and quality of life factors of residents in a low income and low education area. The intent was to determine what types of jobs might have the most positive effect on people in this type of region. Data were collected from 409 households in a low income/education region. The results showed that people from this region were as satisfied with their quality of work life and quality of life as people in other regions with better jobs, higher incomes, and better general life situations. Results are discussed in light of facility location decisions and types of jobs having the most positive impact.

Despite the strong growth performance in transition countries in the last decade, residents of transition countries report abnormally low levels of life satisfaction. Using data from multiple sources including a recent survey in 28 post-communist countries, we study various explanations of this phenomenon. We find that deterioration in public goods provision, an increase in macroeconomic volatility, and a mismatch of human capital explain a great deal of the difference in life satisfaction between transition countries and other countries with similar income. The rest of the gap is explained by the difference in the quality of the samples. As in other countries, life satisfaction in transition is strongly related to income; but due to a higher non-response of high-income individuals in transition countries, the effect of GDP growth on the increase in life satisfaction estimated using survey data is biased downwards. The evidence suggests that if the region keeps growing at current rates, the life satisfaction in transition countries will catch up with the normal level in the near future.

Based on theory of planned behavior, we develop a theoretical model involving love of money (LOM), job satisfaction (attitude), coping strategies/responses (perceived behavioral control), work environment (subjective norm), and work-related behavioral intentions (behavioral intention). We tested this model using job satisfaction as a mediator and sector (public versus private), personal character (good apples versus bad apples), gender, and income as moderators in a sample of 515 employees and their managers in the Republic of Macedonia. For the whole sample, both coping strategies and helpful work environment were related to high job satisfaction. The relationship between work environment and job satisfaction was the strongest link in all subsequent analyses. High LOM is associated with unfavorable work environment for employees in the private sectors and people with low income and is positively associated with coping strategies for bad apples. A favorable work environment was related to less corrupt intent for people in the public sectors, good apples, and with low income, but not for their counterparts. Coping strategies were related to high job satisfaction for males, but not for females. Our counterintuitive results showed that bad apples’ high LOM was related to low corrupt intent. Our theoretical model sheds new light and provides novel theoretical, empirical, and practical implications to Macedonian managers’ corrupt intent.

This study tests the hypothesis that university professors (lecturers) (in the U.S. and Spain) with different money profiles (based on Factors Success, Budget, Motivator, Equity, and Evil of the Love of Money Scale) will differ in work-related attitudes and satisfaction. Results suggested that Achieving Money Worshipers (with high scores on Factors Success, Motivator, Equity, and Budget) had high income, Work Ethic, and high satisfaction with pay level, pay administration, and internal equity comparison but low satisfaction with external equity comparison. Careless Money Admirers (high Success but low Budget) had low intrinsic job satisfaction and low satisfaction with pay level and life. Apathetic Money Managers (low Evil and low Motivator) had the highest intrinsic job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Money Repellent Individuals (high Evil and low Success) had low income, work experience, Work Ethic, and low satisfaction with pay administration. Money does not provide the same motivation for people in all four money profiles. Results are discussed in light of the effectiveness of using money to reward people with different money profiles, intrinsic motivation, and unethical behavior.

This study examines a model involving income, the love of money, pay satisfaction, organizational commitment, job changes, and unethical behavior among 211 full-time employees in Hong Kong, China. Direct paths suggested that the love of money was related to unethical behavior, but income (money) was not. Indirect paths showed that income was negatively related to the love of money that, in turn, was negatively related to pay satisfaction that, in turn, was negatively associated with unethical behavior. Pay satisfaction was positively related to organizational commitment. Thus, the love of money is the root of evil, but money is not.