What a ridiculous strawman to attack. Author didn't even try to prove that this "unspoken objection" actually exists, he just enjoyed the fantasy of evil man in suits so much.
Assuming the two people make up the total economy; $120 out of a total $220 is a greater amount of money than is $140 out of $300.
"Would you rather have a yacht if your neighbor has two yachts, or a dingy, and your neighbor doesn't have a boat?" Everyone will answer yachts, because yachts aren't subconsciously inflationary.
"Would you rather have ten books and your neighbor has fifteen, or five books and your neighbor has three?"
"Would you rather own three pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns four, or two pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns one?"
Also, the very fact they're asking the question in a study causes people to answer differently than they would normally -- that's the problem with this sort of 'science' to begin with.
It's always this sort of Gotcha! science. People are used to that. As a result, most people, when they're answering questions in a study are thinking "These are trick questions. I won't be a guinea pig. What is the underlying trick here?"
---
Addendum: The study may also be dealing with a cultural difference in the use of the phrase "your neighbor". In the southern Christian tradition "your neighbor" is a catch-all for people that you are not related to (from Mark 12:31).
I agree with your general point, many of these kinds of psychological studies lack all external validity (they don't measure what they think they measure). It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right."
It shouldn't. Most people make up their minds first, and then decide what facts and evidence to accept and reject afterwards. And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away.
Facts can't be 'against' something. That's silly, anthropomorphism. Facts must necessarily be interpreted, they are themselves meaningless until we choose to apply them toward some argument, which must, axiomatically, require some amount of unsubstantiated theorizing.
Have you no sense of the history of the philosophy of science at all?
The empirical research isn't "wrong", that doesn't even make sense. Data is just data, it stands for nothing but itself, it must be interpreted for one to make a grander statement about reality.
I'm saying your and enraged_camel's interpretation of the data is wrong -- which is no less scientific a position, and no more unsubstantiated. We're both examining the data, which itself has no opinion, and making predictions about what that data represents given a number of imperfect heuristics.
That's how science works.
2) Still, the author didn't even link these studies in his post.
Or for some people who worked hard to get up from minimum wage to get to $10/hour. They are now, in a way, demoted back to making minimum wage!
That said, I find it a useful because there's still value in his words to be taken. As John Stuart Mill says in On Liberty: "Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth"[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Of_the_liberty_of_t...
Note: pot, kettle, black.