Does money make you mean? | Paul Piff

Translator: Kerttu Tihanov Reviewer: Aari Lemmik

I want you to, for a moment,

Tahan, et kujutaksite korraks ette Monopoli mängimist.

think about playing a game of Monopoly.

Ainult et selles mängus

Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck

on segu osavusest, andest ja vedamisest,

mis muidu mängus ja elus edu toob,

that helped earn you success in games, as in life,

kaotanud igasuguse tähtsuse,

has been rendered irrelevant,

because this game's been rigged,

kuna selles mängus on võitja ette teada

and you've got the upper hand.

ja teie olete eelisolukorras.

You've got more money,

Teil on rohkem raha,

more opportunities to move around the board,

rohkem võimalusi mängulaual käike teha

ja parem juurdepääs ressurssidele.

and more access to resources.

And as you think about that experience,

Kui te nüüd mõtlete sellisele mängule, küsige palun endalt,

I want you to ask yourself:

kuidas olukord, kus tänu sohile võidate kindlasti teie

How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game

muudaks teie suhtumist iseendasse

change the way you think about yourself

ja ka teise mängijasse.

and regard that other player?

So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus

Uurisime sedasama küsimust

California ülikoolis Berkeleys.

to look at exactly that question.

Kutsusime katses osalema

We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab,

enam kui 100 paari võõraid inimesi.

and with the flip of a coin,

Viskasime kulli ja kirja,

randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game.

et määrata igast paarist üks

kes on selles sohimängus rikas.

They got two times as much money;

Nad said kaks korda rohkem raha.

when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary;

Kui nad läbisid stardiruudu,

said nad kaks korda rohkem palka.

Nad said täringut veeretada kaks korda,

and they got to roll both dice instead of one,

seega said nad mängulaual rohkem liikuda.

so they got to move around the board a lot more.

(Laughter)

(Naer)

Jälgisime 15 minutit varjatud kaamera abil, mis toimub.

And over the course of 15 minutes,

we watched through hidden cameras what happened.

Täna tahan esimest korda

What I want to do today, for the first time,

näidata teile osakest sellest, mida me nägime.

is show you a little bit of what we saw.

You'll to have to pardon the sound quality,

Vabandan helikvaliteedi pärast,

tegemist oli ikkagi varjatud kaameratega.

because again, these were hidden cameras.

So we've provided subtitles.

Seetõttu on lisatud subtiitrid.

[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?

Mitu 500-dollarilist sa said?

Ainult ühe.

Poor Player: Just one.

Päriselt? - Jah.

RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.

Ma sain kolm.

RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.

Ma ei tea, miks mulle nii palju anti.

Mängijad taipasid üsna pea, et midagi on valesti.

Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up.

Ühel oli selgelt rohkem raha kui teisel mängijal, aga mängu edenes

One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person,

and yet, as the game unfolded,

märkasime aga olulisi erinevusi,

we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge

lausa drastilisi erinevusi, mis kahe mängija vahel ilmnesid.

between the two players.

The rich player started to move around the board louder,

Rikas mängija tegi mängulaual oma käike häälekamalt,

literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around.

oma käike tehes ta sõna otses mõttes peksis mängulauda

(Game piece smacks board)

We were more likely to see signs of dominance

Suurema tõenäosusega võis täheldada domineerivat käitumist,

and nonverbal signs, displays of power

mitteverbaalset üleoleku näitamist ja kordamineku tähistamist

and celebration among the rich players.

just rikaste mängijate seas.

We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side.

Panime laua servale kausi soolakringlitsega.

Siin all paremas nurgas.

It's on the bottom right corner.

That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior.

Nii saime jälgida osalejate tarbimiskäitumist.

Vaatasime, mitu soolakringlit võetakse.

So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.

[Video] RP: Are those pretzels a trick?

Kas need soolakringlid on mingi trikk?

PP: I don't know.

Ma ei tea.

Paul Piff: OK, so no surprises, people are on to us.

Okei, ei mingit üllatust, nad aimavad meie plaane.

They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place.

Nad arutavad omavahel,

miks see kauss sinna pandud on.

Üks isegi küsib, nagu just nägite,

One even asks, like you just saw,

kas need soolakringlid on mingi lõks.

"Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?"

Ent sellest hoolimata on võimujaotusel oma mõju,

And yet, despite that, the power of the situation

seems to inevitably dominate,

see hakkab vältimatult domineerima

and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.

ja rikkad mängijad hakkavad rohkem soolakringleid sööma.

(Laughter)

[Video] RP: I love pretzels.

Ma armastan soolakringleid.

(Laughter)

Kui mäng jätkus,

Paul Piff: And as the game went on,

köitis meie tähelepanu üks põnev ja tähelepanuväärne seaduspärasus:

one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns

that we observed begin to emerge

nimelt hakkasid rikkad mängijad

was that the rich players actually started to become ruder

oma vastasmängijaga ebaviisakalt käituma.

toward the other person --

Nad näitasid oma vaeste mängukaaslaste suhtes üha vähem hoolivust

less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players,

and more and more demonstrative of their material success,

ja hakkasid üha enam oma materiaalse eduga eputama,

tahtes justkui kõigile näidata, kui hästi neil ikka läheb.

more likely to showcase how well they're doing.

Mul on raha kõige jaoks.

[Video] RP: I have money ...

(Laughs) I have money for everything.

Palju seda siis on?

PP: How much is that?

RP: You owe me 24 dollars.

Sa oled mulle 24 dollarit võlgu.

You're going to lose all your money soon.

Sa jääd varsti kogu oma rahast ilma.

Ma ostan selle ära. Mul on nii palju raha.

I'll buy it. I have so much money.

I have so much money, it takes me forever.

Mul on nii palju raha, see võtab igaviku.

RP 2: I'm going to buy out this whole board.

Ma ostan terve laua tühjaks.

RP 3: You're going to run out of money soon.

Sul saab varsti raha otsa.

Ma olen praegu võitmatu.

I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.

(Laughter)

Ja nüüd räägin sellest,

Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting:

mis on minu jaoks väga huvitav.

Kui see 15 minutit läbi sai,

it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes,

palusime mängijatel rääkida oma mängukogemusest.

we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game.

And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won

Kui rikkad mängijad selgitasid,

miks nad nii ülekaalukalt võitsid,

in this rigged game of Monopoly ...

kuigi nende puhul oli tegu sohimänguga,

(Laughter)

(Naer)

rääkisid nad sellest, mida nad ise tegid,

They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties

et erinevaid kinnisvaraobjekte osta

and earn their success in the game.

ja mängus edu saavutada.

(Laughter)

And they became far less attuned

Nad ei pööranud erilist tähelepanu

kõikidele oma olukorra nüanssidele,

to all those different features of the situation --

including that flip of a coin --

sealhulgas kulli ja kirja viskamisele,

that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position

tänu millele nad üldse täiesti juhuslikult eelisolukorda sattusid.

in the first place.

And that's a really, really incredible insight

See on tõeliselt hämmastav tõestus,

into how the mind makes sense of advantage.

kuidas mõistus eelise saamist iseenesestmõistetavaks peab.

Monopoli saab kasutada metafoorina,

Now, this game of Monopoly can be used

as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure,

mille abil mõista ühiskonda

ja selle hierarhiat, kus mõnedel inimestel

wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status,

on palju raha ja kõrge staatus

and a lot of people don't;

kuid paljudel seda pole.

Neil on vähem raha, madalam staatus

they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status

ja palju halvem juurdepääs väärtuslikele ressurssidele.

and a lot less access to valued resources.

Olen koos oma kolleegidega viimased seitse aastat

And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing

is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies.

uurinud selliste hierarhiate mõju.

What we've been finding across dozens of studies

Meie kümned uuringud, kus on osalenud tuhanded inimesed üle kogu maa

and thousands of participants across this country

on näidanud, et kui saadakse rikkamaks,

is that as a person's levels of wealth increase,

kahaneb kaastunde- ja empaatiavõime.

their feelings of compassion and empathy go down,

Inimene tunneb, et on rikkuse ära teeninud ja väärib seda

and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness,

and their ideology of self-interest increase.

ning toetab aina enam ainult isiklike huvide eest seismist.

Meie uuringud on näidanud, et jõukamad inimesed

In surveys, we've found

that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize

hakkavad tõenäolisemalt pidama ahnust millekski positiivseks

greed being good,

ning uskuma, et isiklike huvide teenimine

and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral.

on ainuõige ja hea.

Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications

Tahangi nüüd rääkida isiklike huvide teenimist väärtustava ideoloogia mõjudest,

of this ideology self-interest,

miks sellega kaasnevad nähtused meile peaksid korda minema

talk about why we should care about those implications,

ja lõpuks sellest, mida saaks selles osas ette võtta.

and end with what might be done.

Some of the first studies that we ran in this area

Paaris esimeses uuringus selles vallas

uurisime aitavat käitumist,

looked at helping behavior,

mida sotsiaalpsühholoogid nimetavad

something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior."

prosotsiaalseks käitumiseks.

Meid huvitas väga, kes ulatab suurema tõenäosusega teisele abikäe.

And we were really interested

in who's more likely to offer help to another person:

someone who's rich or someone who's poor.

Kas rikas või vaene inimene?

In one of the studies,

Ühte uuringusse kutsusime osalema nii rikkaid kui vaeseid

we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab,

ja andsime igaühele 10 dollarit.

and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars.

We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves,

Me ütlesime osalejatele,

et nad võivad need 10 dollarit endale jätta

või soovi korral osa sellest ära anda -

or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to,

võõrale inimesele,

with a stranger, who's totally anonymous.

kes on täiesti anonüümne.

Nad ei näe seda võõrast enam iial.

They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them.

Jälgisime, palju inimesed annavad.

And we just monitor how much people give.

Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year,

Inimesed, kes teenisid aastas 25 000 dollarit, vahel ka alla 15 000 dollari,

gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger

andsid võõrale inimesele 44 protsenti rohkem raha

than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.

kui inimesed, kes teenisid aastas 150 000 või isegi 200 000 dollarit.

We've had people play games

Oleme lasknud inimestel mänge mängida,

to see who's more or less likely to cheat

et näha, kes hakkab petma,

to increase their chances of winning a prize.

et oma võiduvõimalusi suurendada.

In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer

Ühes mängus seadistasime arvuti nii,

so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible --

et täringu veeretamisel oli teatud arvu saamine

lihtsalt võimatu.

12 punkti oli lagi.

You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ...

Ometi selgus, et mida rikkam mängija oli,

the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game

seda tõenäolisemalt üritas ta petta,

et võita 50 dollarit sularaha,

to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize --

vahel kolm-neli korda rohkemgi.

sometimes by three to four times as much.

Samuti tegime ühe teise uuringu,

We ran another study

where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy

et näha, kas inimesed võtaksid kommi

from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified

sellisest kommipurgist, kus on selgelt peal kirjas “Ainult lastele”

as being reserved for children --

(Laughter)

(Naer)

I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke.

Ma ei tee nalja.

Ma tean, et see kõlab nagu nali.

Ütlesime osalejatele selgelt,

We explicitly told participants:

"This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby.

et see kommipurk on mõeldud lastele,

kes osalevad ühes arengu-uuringus.

They're in studies. This is for them."

Nad osalevad katses, kommid on neile.

And we just monitored how much candy participants took.

Me lihtsalt jälgisime, kui palju kommi võetakse.

Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy

End rikkaks pidavad osalejad

võtsid kaks korda rohkem

as participants who felt poor.

kui end vaeseks pidavad osalejad.

We've even studied cars.

Oleme isegi autosid uurinud.

Mitte igasuguseid autosid,

Not just any cars,

vaid seda, kas erinevate autode juhid

but whether drivers of different kinds of cars

kalduvad rohkem või vähem likluseeskirju rikkuma.

are more or less inclined to break the law.

Ühes sellises uuringus vaatasime seda,

In one of these studies,

we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian

kas juhid peatuvad jalakäija ees,

kelle panime ülekäiguraja juurde tee ületamist ootama.

that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk.

Californias, nagu te kõik teate,

Now in California, as you all know,

sest me kõik ju teeme nii,

because I'm sure we all do this,

it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross.

kohustab seadus autojuhte jalakäijaid üle tee laskma.

So here's an example of how we did it.

Siin on näete meie katset.

Vasakul on meie kaasosaline,

That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian.

kes mängib jalakäijat.

He approaches as the red truck successfully stops.

Ta läheneb ja punane sõiduk peatub.

Nagu Californias ikka, kihutab sellest mööda punane buss,

In typical California fashion,

it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.

mis jalakäija peaaegu alla ajab.

(Laughter)

Now here's an example of a more expensive car,

Siin on näide kallimast autost.

Prius ei peatu, BMW ka mitte.

a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same.

So we did this for hundreds of vehicles

Vaatlesime sadu sõidukeid, mitu päeva järjest

on several days,

just tracking who stops and who doesn't.

Vaatasime, kes peatub ja kes mitte.

What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...

Vaatlusest selgus, et mida kallim on auto,

(Laughter)

(Naer)

the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well.

seda suurema tõenäosusega rikub juht liikluseeskirju.

None of the cars -- none of the cars --

Mitte ükski odavaimate autode seast

in our least expensive car category

ei rikkunud liikluseeskirju.

broke the law.

Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category

Ligi 50 protsenti autodest kalleimate autode kategooriast

broke the law.

rikkus liikluseeskirju.

We've run other studies,

Samuti on uurimused näidanud,

finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations,

et jõukamad inimesed võivad läbirääkimistel valetada

to endorse unethical behavior at work,

ja õigustada ebaeetilist käitumist tööl,

like stealing cash from the cash register,

näiteks kassast raha varastamist,

taking bribes, lying to customers.

altkäemaksu võtmist ja klientidele valetamist.

Now, I don't mean to suggest

Ma ei taha väita,

et ainult rikastel inimestel esineb sellist käitumist.

that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior.

Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all,

Sugugi mitte.

Usun, et me kõik oleme oma igapäevaelus

in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives,

võidelnud selle vastuolulise küsimusega,

struggle with these competing motivations

of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people.

millal ja kas võib oma isiklikke huve

teiste inimeste huvidest kõrgemale seada?

And that's understandable,

See on täiesti arusaadav,

because the American dream is an idea

sest Ameerika unistus põhineb arusaamal,

et meil kõigil on võrdne võimalus

in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper,

saavutada edu ja jõukus,

kui me ise selle nimel vaeva näeme.

as long as we apply ourselves and work hard.

And a piece of that means that sometimes,

See aga tähendab seda,

you need to put your own interests

et mõnikord peame seadma oma huvid

above the interests and well-being of other people around you.

ettepoole teiste huvidest ja heaolust.

Meie uuringutest on aga selgunud,

But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are,

et mida jõukam inimene on, seda tõenäolisemalt

the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success,

üritab ta saavutada isiklikku edu,

of achievement and accomplishment,

saavutusi ja kordaminekuid teiste inimeste arvelt,

to the detriment of others around you.

Here I've plotted for you the mean household income

Olen välja arvutanud keskmise sissetuleku,

received by each fifth and top five percent of the population

mida iga viies majapidamine ja elanikkonna ülemised viis protsenti

over the last 20 years.

on saanud viimased 20 aastat.

In 1993,

1993. aastal oli erinevus elanikkonna kvintiilide vahel

the differences between the different quintiles of the population,

in terms of income,

sissetuleku mõttes üsna radikaalne.

are fairly egregious.

It's not difficult to discern that there are differences.

See pole mingi saladus, et erinevused eksisteerivad,

kuid viimase 20 aastaga on suurest erinevusest saanud

But over the last 20 years, that significant difference

omamoodi Suur Kanjon

has become a Grand Canyon of sorts

between those at the top and everyone else.

tipus olevate inimeste ja kõigi ülejäänute vahel.

In fact, the top 20 percent of our population

Õigupoolest omab 20% riigi jõukamatest inimestest

ligi 90% kogu riigi rikkusest.

own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.

Majandusliku ebavõrdsus on seninägematult suur.

We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality.

What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated

See ei tähenda mitte üksnes seda,

et rikkus on koondumas väheste äravalitute kätte,

in the hands of a select group of individuals,

but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable

vaid ka seda, et Ameerika unistus

on muutumas üha kättesaamatumaks

ja seda meist enamiku jaoks.

for an increasing majority of us.

Kui asi on tõesti nii, nagu täheldanud oleme -

And if it's the case, as we've been finding,

mida rikkam inimene on,

that the wealthier you are,

the more entitled you feel to that wealth,

seda rohkem ta tunneb, et väärib seda,

ja seda suurema tõenäosusega seab ta enda huvid

and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests

teiste huvidest kõrgemale

above the interests of other people,

and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest,

ning teeb omakasu nimel kõike,

siis ei ole põhjust loota,

well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change.

et need mustrid võiksid muutuda.

Vastupidi - võime eeldada, et olukord halveneb.

In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse,

and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same,

Niimoodi see läheks, kui olukord jääks samasuguseks

at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.

ja süveneks järgmised 20 aastat samasuguse trendiga.

Ebavõrdsus, just majanduslik ebavõrdsus on miski,

Now inequality -- economic inequality --

is something we should all be concerned about,

mille pärast peaksid muretsema kõik,

mitte ainult need, kes on sotsiaalse hierarhia alumises osas.

and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy,

but because individuals and groups

Majanduslik ebavõrdsus kahjustab iga üksikisikut ja gruppi.

with lots of economic inequality do worse ...

Mitte ainult hierarhia alumise otsa inimesi, vaid kõiki.

not just the people at the bottom, everyone.

On tehtud palju põnevaid uurimusi

There's a lot of really compelling research

parimates teaduskeskustes üle maailma,

coming out from top labs all over the world,

showcasing the range of things that are undermined

mis toovad välja, mida kõike majandusliku ebavõrdsus süvenemine mõjutab.

as economic inequality gets worse.

Sotsiaalne liikuvus ja muu, mis on meile väga oluline:

Social mobility, things we really care about,

tervis, sotsiaalne kindlustunne -

physical health, social trust,

all go down as inequality goes up.

kõik see läheb allamäge, kui ebavõrdsus suureneb.

Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies,

Sama lugu on negatiivsete asjadega

kogukondades ja üldse ühiskonnas.

Nähtused nagu ülekaal ja vägivald,

things like obesity, and violence,

vangistused ja karistused

imprisonment, and punishment,

are exacerbated as economic inequality increases.

lähevad hullemaks, kui majanduslik ebavõrdsus süveneb.

Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few,

Jällegi - neid tagajärgi ei tunneta omal mahal ainult üksikud inimesed,

but that resound across all strata of society.

vaid terved ühiskonnakihid.

Even people at the top experience these outcomes.

Need mõjutavad isegi kõrgema staatusega inimesi.

Mida siis ette võtta?

So what do we do?

See lõpmatu negatiivsete, isegi hukatuslike kaasmõjude kaskaad

This cascade of self-perpetuating,

pernicious, negative effects

võib tunduda täiesti lootusetuna,

could seem like something that's spun out of control,

and there's nothing we can do about it,

mille osas keegi ei saa midagi parata,

certainly nothing we as individuals could do.

eriti veel üksikisiku tasandil.

But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research

Tegelikkuses oleme oma uurimustes leidnud,

that small psychological interventions,

et väikesed psühholoogilised sekkumised,

small changes to people's values,

inimeste väärtushinnangute kõigutamine,

small nudges in certain directions,

kerged tõuked teatud suundades

võivad aidata taastada sotsiaalse võrdsuse ja empaatiavõime.

can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy.

For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation

Kui näiteks meenutada inimestele

koostööga kaasnevaid hüvesid

või kogukonnas elamise eeliseid,

or the advantages of community,

cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian

hakkavad ka rikkamad võrdsust pooldama,

as poor people.

nagu vaesemadki inimesed.

Ühes uuringus lasime inimestel vaadata üht lühikest videot,

In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long,

vaid 46 sekundit, mis rääkis vaesusest lapsepõlves,

about childhood poverty

et meenutada vaatajatele meie kaasinimeste vajadusi.

that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them.

Pärast video näitamist uurisime,

And after watching that,

kui varmad oldi kulutama aega võõrale inimesele,

we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time

to a stranger presented to them in the lab, who was in distress.

kes oli samuti laboris ja vajas abi.

Vaid tund pärast video vaatamist

After watching this video, an hour later,

olid jõukad inimesed täpselt sama valmis

rich people became just as generous of their own time

kulutama aega võõra inimese aitamiseks

to help out this other person, a stranger,

kui teised, kes olid vaesed.

as someone who's poor,

See viitas, et need erinevused

suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical,

ei ole kaasasündinud ega vältimatud,

but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values,

vaid on kergelt muudetavad

väikese väärtushinnangute nihutamise,

and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.

kaastunde äratamise ja empaatia ergutamise abil.

Ka meie laborist väljaspool, ühiskonnas laiemalt

And beyond the walls of our lab,

we're even beginning to see signs of change in society.

on näha märke muutustest.

Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals,

Bill Gates, üks USA rikkamaid inimesi, rääkis oma Harvardis peetud kõnes,

in his Harvard commencement speech,

et ebavõrdsuse vähendamine ühiskonnas

talked about the problem of inequality facing society

on üks keerulisemaid probleeme, mis vajavad lahendust.

as being the most daunting challenge,

and talked about what must be done to combat it,

Ta rääkis, mida tuleks ette võtta, öeldes:

“Üks inimkonna suurimaid eeliseid ei peitu mitte selle avastustes,

saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries --

vaid selles, kuidas neid avastusi ebavõrdsuse vähendamiseks kasutatakse”.

but in how those discoveries are applied

to reduce inequity."

On algatatud kampaania Giving Pledge,

And there's the Giving Pledge,

milles enam kui 100 Ameerika rikkaimat inimest

in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals

annetavad poole oma varandusest

are pledging half of their fortunes to charity.

heategevuslikuks otstarbeks.

And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements,

On tekkinud kümneid kodanikualgatusi,

näiteks “We Are the 1%”,

like "We are the 1 percent,"

“The Resource Generation”

"Resource Generation,"

or "Wealth for Common Good,"

või “Wealth for Common Good”,

in which the most privileged members of the population,

mille kaudu elanikkonna kõige priviligeeritumad

members of the one percent and elsewhere,

need, kes kuuluvad 1% sisse või on lihtsalt jõukamad

people who are wealthy,

are using their own economic resources,

rakendavad oma majanduslikke vahendeid,

nende seas on nii täiskasvanuid kui ka noori, mis on eriti üllatav,

adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me --

kasutades oma privilegeeritud staatust,

leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources,

oma rahalisi ressursse,

to combat inequality

ebavõrdsuse vastu võitlemiseks

by advocating for social policies,

sotsiaalpoliitika edendamise kaudu,

changes in social values

ühiskondlike väärtuste muutmise läbi

and changes in people's behavior

ja inimeste käitumist muutes.

See võib neile endile küll majanduslikult kahjulik olla,

that work against their own economic interests,

aga lõppeesmärgina aitab see taastada Ameerika unistuse.

but that may ultimately restore the American dream.

Thank you.

Tänan teid!

(Applause)

(Aplaus)