Why do many money panderers tend to position themselves in areas that are frequented by low to middle-income persons rather then areas frequented by high-income persons?
Hypothesis: Low and middle-income persons are more likely to emphasize with the plight of someone in need/less fortunate than themselves and thus more likely to spend/donate to that person.
(1) On December 16 2009, I was walking in a mall on the bottom floor, the same floor that leads to the subway station and quite naturally has the stores that are tailored to low and middle income persons/families. I found myself engaged in philosophical introspection. I was trying to solve a problem. The puzzle was this: I came across a women who worked for World Vision, (on this same floor of the mall with the subway, cheaper stores, and thus comparatively lower income consumers/shoppers compared to the upper floor) and got talking about different areas of investment in developing countries. Nevertheless, I walked away wondering why she (or a superior) chose to position herself in that particular area as opposed to on the top where the high income people shop. Now, I didn't survey the top floor myself, which means it could be the case that there was already a sufficient supply of organizations pandering for money there making the bottom floor more advantageous. Another possibility is that there are certain regulations that confine where these people position themselves. But setting aside those two possibilities, then the question remains: why does an organization for the poor position itself on the poorest floor? The reasons are as follows: (1) There is more volume. Quite naturally there are more low and middle income people than high income people. (2) These low and middle income persons are more likely to empathize with the plight of others less fortunate than themselves. Thus, they are more likely to be charitable.
(2) As a pattern that is not related to any one date, I have noticed that in the subway those who are dressed in high-profile business attire are less likely to give a beggar money compared to someone in less sophisticated clothing.
(3) On December 18 2009, I made the observation that a beggar is more likely to position himself at Tim Horton's than higher income coffeehouses, such as Star Bucks or Second Cup. Again, more volume and more people who are likely to dole out a quarter here and there and feel good about themselves for doing so. Tiny donations on high volume can be economically rewarding.
(4) On December 18 2009, I found myself walking on a street some ways away from the financial district of the city I live in, and wondered why a beggar was asking for money on that street rather than in the financial district where people have more money and the volume of people is high. Again, if we consider that these people are, ceteris paribus, more generous on average compared to those in the financial district, then this is a perfectly rational decision.
(5) I have noticed that of my family and friends, it is the one's who have comparatively less than the others who are more likely to sacrifice their own financial positions to help others.
Therefore, given this analysis if I had to advise a beggar/panderer/charitable organization on what location is most economically advantageous, and setting aside particular interests and employment and so forth, then the general advise is the following. High volume areas frequented by low and middle income persons is the most economically advantageous place to position one's self even though a considerable share of wealth is concentrated in the higher-income class.