I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly. Except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that helped earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this game's been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself: How might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way you think about yourself and regard that other player?
Tahan, et kujutaksite korraks ette Monopoli mängimist. Ainult et selles mängus on segu osavusest, andest ja vedamisest, mis muidu mängus ja elus edu toob, kaotanud igasuguse tähtsuse, kuna selles mängus on võitja ette teada ja teie olete eelisolukorras. Teil on rohkem raha, rohkem võimalusi mängulaual käike teha ja parem juurdepääs ressurssidele. Kui te nüüd mõtlete sellisele mängule, küsige palun endalt, kuidas olukord, kus tänu sohile võidate kindlasti teie muudaks teie suhtumist iseendasse ja ka teise mängijasse.
So, we ran a study on the UC Berkeley campus to look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, and with the flip of a coin, randomly assigned one of the two to be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money; when they passed Go, they collected twice the salary; and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more.
Uurisime sedasama küsimust California ülikoolis Berkeleys. Kutsusime katses osalema enam kui 100 paari võõraid inimesi. Viskasime kulli ja kirja, et määrata igast paarist üks kes on selles sohimängus rikas. Nad said kaks korda rohkem raha. Kui nad läbisid stardiruudu, said nad kaks korda rohkem palka. Nad said täringut veeretada kaks korda, seega said nad mängulaual rohkem liikuda.
(Laughter)
(Naer)
And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. What I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You'll to have to pardon the sound quality, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles.
Jälgisime 15 minutit varjatud kaamera abil, mis toimub. Täna tahan esimest korda näidata teile osakest sellest, mida me nägime. Vabandan helikvaliteedi pärast, tegemist oli ikkagi varjatud kaameratega. Seetõttu on lisatud subtiitrid.
[Video] Rich Player: How many 500s did you have?
Mitu 500-dollarilist sa said?
Poor Player: Just one.
Ainult ühe.
RP: Are you serious? PP: Yeah.
Päriselt? - Jah.
RP: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much.
Ma sain kolm. Ma ei tea, miks mulle nii palju anti.
Paul Piff: So it was quickly apparent to players that something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money than the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences, dramatic differences begin to emerge between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with the piece as he went around.
Mängijad taipasid üsna pea, et midagi on valesti. Ühel oli selgelt rohkem raha kui teisel mängijal, aga mängu edenes märkasime aga olulisi erinevusi, lausa drastilisi erinevusi, mis kahe mängija vahel ilmnesid. Rikas mängija tegi mängulaual oma käike häälekamalt, oma käike tehes ta sõna otses mõttes peksis mängulauda
(Game piece smacks board)
Suurema tõenäosusega võis täheldada domineerivat käitumist,
We were more likely to see signs of dominance and nonverbal signs, displays of power and celebration among the rich players.
mitteverbaalset üleoleku näitamist ja kordamineku tähistamist just rikaste mängijate seas.
We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. It's on the bottom right corner. That allowed us to watch participants' consummatory behavior. So we're just tracking how many pretzels participants eat.
Panime laua servale kausi soolakringlitsega. Siin all paremas nurgas. Nii saime jälgida osalejate tarbimiskäitumist. Vaatasime, mitu soolakringlit võetakse.
[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. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, "Is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick?" And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels.
Okei, ei mingit üllatust, nad aimavad meie plaane. Nad arutavad omavahel, miks see kauss sinna pandud on. Üks isegi küsib, nagu just nägite, kas need soolakringlid on mingi lõks. Ent sellest hoolimata on võimujaotusel oma mõju, see hakkab vältimatult domineerima ja rikkad mängijad hakkavad rohkem soolakringleid sööma.
(Laughter)
[Video] RP: I love pretzels.
Ma armastan soolakringleid.
(Laughter)
Paul Piff: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person -- less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing.
Kui mäng jätkus, köitis meie tähelepanu üks põnev ja tähelepanuväärne seaduspärasus: nimelt hakkasid rikkad mängijad oma vastasmängijaga ebaviisakalt käituma. Nad näitasid oma vaeste mängukaaslaste suhtes üha vähem hoolivust ja hakkasid üha enam oma materiaalse eduga eputama, tahtes justkui kõigile näidata, kui hästi neil ikka läheb.
[Video] RP: I have money ...
Mul on raha kõige jaoks.
(Laughs) I have money for everything.
PP: How much is that?
Palju seda siis on?
RP: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever.
Sa oled mulle 24 dollarit võlgu. Sa jääd varsti kogu oma rahast ilma. Ma ostan selle ära. Mul on nii palju raha. 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. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point.
Sul saab varsti raha otsa. Ma olen praegu võitmatu.
(Laughter)
Ja nüüd räägin sellest,
Paul Piff: And here's what I think was really, really interesting: it's that, at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly ...
mis on minu jaoks väga huvitav. Kui see 15 minutit läbi sai, palusime mängijatel rääkida oma mängukogemusest. Kui rikkad mängijad selgitasid, miks nad nii ülekaalukalt võitsid, kuigi nende puhul oli tegu sohimänguga,
(Laughter)
(Naer)
They talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game.
rääkisid nad sellest, mida nad ise tegid, et erinevaid kinnisvaraobjekte osta ja mängus edu saavutada.
(Laughter)
Nad ei pööranud erilist tähelepanu
And they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation -- including that flip of a coin -- that had randomly gotten them into that privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight into how the mind makes sense of advantage.
kõikidele oma olukorra nüanssidele, sealhulgas kulli ja kirja viskamisele, tänu millele nad üldse täiesti juhuslikult eelisolukorda sattusid. See on tõeliselt hämmastav tõestus, kuidas mõistus eelise saamist iseenesestmõistetavaks peab.
Now, this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't; they have a lot less wealth and a lot less status and a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a person's levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingness, and their ideology of self-interest increase. In surveys, we've found that it's actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest is favorable and moral. Now, what I want to do today is talk about some of the implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done.
Monopoli saab kasutada metafoorina, mille abil mõista ühiskonda ja selle hierarhiat, kus mõnedel inimestel on palju raha ja kõrge staatus kuid paljudel seda pole. Neil on vähem raha, madalam staatus ja palju halvem juurdepääs väärtuslikele ressurssidele. Olen koos oma kolleegidega viimased seitse aastat uurinud selliste hierarhiate mõju. Meie kümned uuringud, kus on osalenud tuhanded inimesed üle kogu maa on näidanud, et kui saadakse rikkamaks, kahaneb kaastunde- ja empaatiavõime. Inimene tunneb, et on rikkuse ära teeninud ja väärib seda ning toetab aina enam ainult isiklike huvide eest seismist. Meie uuringud on näidanud, et jõukamad inimesed hakkavad tõenäolisemalt pidama ahnust millekski positiivseks ning uskuma, et isiklike huvide teenimine on ainuõige ja hea. Tahangi nüüd rääkida isiklike huvide teenimist väärtustava ideoloogia mõjudest, miks sellega kaasnevad nähtused meile peaksid korda minema ja lõpuks sellest, mida saaks selles osas ette võtta.
Some of the first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behavior, something social psychologists call "pro-social behavior." 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. In one of the studies, we bring rich and poor members of the community into the lab, and give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger, who's totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger; the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how much people give. Individuals who made 25,000, sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger than did individuals making 150,000, 200,000 dollars a year.
Paaris esimeses uuringus selles vallas uurisime aitavat käitumist, mida sotsiaalpsühholoogid nimetavad prosotsiaalseks käitumiseks. Meid huvitas väga, kes ulatab suurema tõenäosusega teisele abikäe. Kas rikas või vaene inimene? Ühte uuringusse kutsusime osalema nii rikkaid kui vaeseid ja andsime igaühele 10 dollarit. Me ütlesime osalejatele, et nad võivad need 10 dollarit endale jätta või soovi korral osa sellest ära anda - võõrale inimesele, kes on täiesti anonüümne. Nad ei näe seda võõrast enam iial. Jälgisime, palju inimesed annavad. Inimesed, kes teenisid aastas 25 000 dollarit, vahel ka alla 15 000 dollari, andsid võõrale inimesele 44 protsenti rohkem raha kui inimesed, kes teenisid aastas 150 000 või isegi 200 000 dollarit.
We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score were impossible -- You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet ... the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize -- sometimes by three to four times as much.
Oleme lasknud inimestel mänge mängida, et näha, kes hakkab petma, et oma võiduvõimalusi suurendada. Ühes mängus seadistasime arvuti nii, et täringu veeretamisel oli teatud arvu saamine lihtsalt võimatu. 12 punkti oli lagi. Ometi selgus, et mida rikkam mängija oli, seda tõenäolisemalt üritas ta petta, et võita 50 dollarit sularaha, vahel kolm-neli korda rohkemgi.
We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children --
Samuti tegime ühe teise uuringu, et näha, kas inimesed võtaksid kommi sellisest kommipurgist, kus on selgelt peal kirjas “Ainult lastele”
(Laughter)
(Naer)
I'm not kidding -- I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants: "This candy is for children participating in a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them." And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy as participants who felt poor.
Ma ei tee nalja. Ma tean, et see kõlab nagu nali. Ütlesime osalejatele selgelt, et see kommipurk on mõeldud lastele, kes osalevad ühes arengu-uuringus. Nad osalevad katses, kommid on neile. Me lihtsalt jälgisime, kui palju kommi võetakse. End rikkaks pidavad osalejad võtsid kaks korda rohkem kui end vaeseks pidavad osalejad.
We've even studied cars. Not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian that we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, it's the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left, posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red truck successfully stops. In typical California fashion, it's overtaken by the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over.
Oleme isegi autosid uurinud. Mitte igasuguseid autosid, vaid seda, kas erinevate autode juhid kalduvad rohkem või vähem likluseeskirju rikkuma. Ühes sellises uuringus vaatasime seda, kas juhid peatuvad jalakäija ees, kelle panime ülekäiguraja juurde tee ületamist ootama. Californias, nagu te kõik teate, sest me kõik ju teeme nii, kohustab seadus autojuhte jalakäijaid üle tee laskma. Siin on näete meie katset. Vasakul on meie kaasosaline, kes mängib jalakäijat. Ta läheneb ja punane sõiduk peatub. Nagu Californias ikka, kihutab sellest mööda punane buss, mis jalakäija peaaegu alla ajab.
(Laughter)
Siin on näide kallimast autost.
Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was as the expensiveness of a car increased ...
Prius ei peatu, BMW ka mitte. Vaatlesime sadu sõidukeid, mitu päeva järjest Vaatasime, kes peatub ja kes mitte. Vaatlusest selgus, et mida kallim on auto,
(Laughter)
(Naer)
the drivers' tendencies to break the law increased as well. None of the cars -- none of the cars -- in our least expensive car category broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category broke the law. We've run other studies, finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behavior at work, like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers.
seda suurema tõenäosusega rikub juht liikluseeskirju. Mitte ükski odavaimate autode seast ei rikkunud liikluseeskirju. Ligi 50 protsenti autodest kalleimate autode kategooriast rikkus liikluseeskirju. Samuti on uurimused näidanud, et jõukamad inimesed võivad läbirääkimistel valetada ja õigustada ebaeetilist käitumist tööl, näiteks kassast raha varastamist, altkäemaksu võtmist ja klientidele valetamist.
Now, I don't mean to suggest that it's only wealthy people who show these patterns of behavior. Not at all -- in fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when or if to put our own interests above the interests of other people. And that's understandable, because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard. And a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what we're finding is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you.
Ma ei taha väita, et ainult rikastel inimestel esineb sellist käitumist. Sugugi mitte. Usun, et me kõik oleme oma igapäevaelus võidelnud selle vastuolulise küsimusega, millal ja kas võib oma isiklikke huve teiste inimeste huvidest kõrgemale seada? See on täiesti arusaadav, sest Ameerika unistus põhineb arusaamal, et meil kõigil on võrdne võimalus saavutada edu ja jõukus, kui me ise selle nimel vaeva näeme. See aga tähendab seda, et mõnikord peame seadma oma huvid ettepoole teiste huvidest ja heaolust. Meie uuringutest on aga selgunud, et mida jõukam inimene on, seda tõenäolisemalt üritab ta saavutada isiklikku edu, saavutusi ja kordaminekuid teiste inimeste arvelt,
Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quintiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. It's not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a Grand Canyon of sorts between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country.
Olen välja arvutanud keskmise sissetuleku, mida iga viies majapidamine ja elanikkonna ülemised viis protsenti on saanud viimased 20 aastat. 1993. aastal oli erinevus elanikkonna kvintiilide vahel sissetuleku mõttes üsna radikaalne. See pole mingi saladus, et erinevused eksisteerivad, kuid viimase 20 aastaga on suurest erinevusest saanud omamoodi Suur Kanjon tipus olevate inimeste ja kõigi ülejäänute vahel. Õigupoolest omab 20% riigi jõukamatest inimestest ligi 90% kogu riigi rikkusest.
We're at unprecedented levels of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable for an increasing majority of us. And if it's the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well, then, there's no reason to think that those patterns will change. 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, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years.
Majandusliku ebavõrdsus on seninägematult suur. See ei tähenda mitte üksnes seda, et rikkus on koondumas väheste äravalitute kätte, vaid ka seda, et Ameerika unistus on muutumas üha kättesaamatumaks ja seda meist enamiku jaoks. Kui asi on tõesti nii, nagu täheldanud oleme - mida rikkam inimene on, seda rohkem ta tunneb, et väärib seda, ja seda suurema tõenäosusega seab ta enda huvid teiste huvidest kõrgemale ning teeb omakasu nimel kõike, siis ei ole põhjust loota, et need mustrid võiksid muutuda. Vastupidi - võime eeldada, et olukord halveneb. Niimoodi see läheks, kui olukord jääks samasuguseks ja süveneks järgmised 20 aastat samasuguse trendiga.
Now inequality -- economic inequality -- is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse ... not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world, showcasing the range of things that are undermined as economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes.
Ebavõrdsus, just majanduslik ebavõrdsus on miski, mille pärast peaksid muretsema kõik, mitte ainult need, kes on sotsiaalse hierarhia alumises osas. Majanduslik ebavõrdsus kahjustab iga üksikisikut ja gruppi. Mitte ainult hierarhia alumise otsa inimesi, vaid kõiki. On tehtud palju põnevaid uurimusi parimates teaduskeskustes üle maailma, mis toovad välja, mida kõike majandusliku ebavõrdsus süvenemine mõjutab. Sotsiaalne liikuvus ja muu, mis on meile väga oluline: tervis, sotsiaalne kindlustunne - kõik see läheb allamäge, kui ebavõrdsus suureneb. Sama lugu on negatiivsete asjadega kogukondades ja üldse ühiskonnas. Nähtused nagu ülekaal ja vägivald, vangistused ja karistused lähevad hullemaks, kui majanduslik ebavõrdsus süveneb. Jällegi - neid tagajärgi ei tunneta omal mahal ainult üksikud inimesed, vaid terved ühiskonnakihid. Need mõjutavad isegi kõrgema staatusega inimesi.
So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to people's values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian as poor people.
Mida siis ette võtta? See lõpmatu negatiivsete, isegi hukatuslike kaasmõjude kaskaad võib tunduda täiesti lootusetuna, mille osas keegi ei saa midagi parata, eriti veel üksikisiku tasandil. Tegelikkuses oleme oma uurimustes leidnud, et väikesed psühholoogilised sekkumised, inimeste väärtushinnangute kõigutamine, kerged tõuked teatud suundades võivad aidata taastada sotsiaalse võrdsuse ja empaatiavõime. Kui näiteks meenutada inimestele koostööga kaasnevaid hüvesid või kogukonnas elamise eeliseid, hakkavad ka rikkamad võrdsust pooldama, nagu vaesemadki inimesed.
In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them. And after watching that, 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. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in people's values, and little nudges of compassion and bumps of empathy.
Ühes uuringus lasime inimestel vaadata üht lühikest videot, vaid 46 sekundit, mis rääkis vaesusest lapsepõlves, et meenutada vaatajatele meie kaasinimeste vajadusi. Pärast video näitamist uurisime, kui varmad oldi kulutama aega võõrale inimesele, kes oli samuti laboris ja vajas abi. Vaid tund pärast video vaatamist olid jõukad inimesed täpselt sama valmis kulutama aega võõra inimese aitamiseks kui teised, kes olid vaesed. See viitas, et need erinevused ei ole kaasasündinud ega vältimatud, vaid on kergelt muudetavad väikese väärtushinnangute nihutamise, kaastunde äratamise ja empaatia ergutamise abil.
And beyond the walls of our lab, we're even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nation's wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem of inequality facing society as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, "Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries -- but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity." And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nation's wealthiest individuals are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grassroots movements, like "We are the 1 percent," "Resource Generation," or "Wealth for Common Good," in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike -- that's what's most striking to me -- leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values and changes in people's behavior that work against their own economic interests, but that may ultimately restore the American dream.
Ka meie laborist väljaspool, ühiskonnas laiemalt on näha märke muutustest. Bill Gates, üks USA rikkamaid inimesi, rääkis oma Harvardis peetud kõnes, et ebavõrdsuse vähendamine ühiskonnas on üks keerulisemaid probleeme, mis vajavad lahendust. Ta rääkis, mida tuleks ette võtta, öeldes: “Üks inimkonna suurimaid eeliseid ei peitu mitte selle avastustes, vaid selles, kuidas neid avastusi ebavõrdsuse vähendamiseks kasutatakse”. On algatatud kampaania Giving Pledge, milles enam kui 100 Ameerika rikkaimat inimest annetavad poole oma varandusest heategevuslikuks otstarbeks. On tekkinud kümneid kodanikualgatusi, näiteks “We Are the 1%”, “The Resource Generation” või “Wealth for Common Good”, mille kaudu elanikkonna kõige priviligeeritumad need, kes kuuluvad 1% sisse või on lihtsalt jõukamad rakendavad oma majanduslikke vahendeid, nende seas on nii täiskasvanuid kui ka noori, mis on eriti üllatav, kasutades oma privilegeeritud staatust, oma rahalisi ressursse, ebavõrdsuse vastu võitlemiseks sotsiaalpoliitika edendamise kaudu, ühiskondlike väärtuste muutmise läbi ja inimeste käitumist muutes. See võib neile endile küll majanduslikult kahjulik olla, aga lõppeesmärgina aitab see taastada Ameerika unistuse.
Thank you.
Tänan teid!
(Applause)
(Aplaus)