People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular.

---

How hard someone works is almost irrelevant unless they are on a piecework arrangement.

Labour like any other commodity is subject to market forces with respect to price. It has different statutory requirements and different cost drivers but it's still a commodity largely determined by the price mechanism.

I'm sure for instance that a worker in a furniture factory probably works far harder than an investment banker but because of the price mechanism a higher price is paid for the labour of investment bankers than workers in a furniture factory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

---

And?

If I was the employer and I told everyone in the firm that I was giving everyone a pay increase in line with CPI, then that's my business. If you don't happen to like it then you are free to take your labour elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In your specific case, I'm sure you would say that you would work just as hard for more money or less money. That does not hold true for society as a whole. And it does not hold true for me in particular. If you tell me that no matter how hard I work this year I will get the exact same raise as the most worthless employee in my company, I know that my motivation will lessen.

---

In that case, you must see some of the 'golden handshakes' for members of senior management who leave their employer under a cloud and be disgusted, surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

You haven't answered my perfectly genuine question. Do you feel that my lack of interest in the money makes me a worse employee than would be the case if it were a tremendous motivation?

---

Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

---

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better. What do you want to see in your perfect society in percentage growth terms, or income distribution, or whatever else?

---

As I've already said, I'm raising a concern, not making a proposal. As income falls for 20% of the population it somehow rises by a massive amount for just 1% at the top. Why is that?

Would you argue that it's just those with the drive and determination reaping the rewards of their hard work, and there's nothing to prevent those among the 20% from doing the same?

What do I want to see in society? A less selfish "I'm alright Jack" mentality would be a good start.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Every person is different, but without doubt financial motivation is a factor in the vast majority of working people that have bills to pay. How many people do you think would show up every day and work just as hard if their income was to remain stable and the actual work were optional?

---

Very good statement :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

You have to remember that there isn't any bottomless resource of wealth or unlimited growth. The more you get, the less there is for others.

---

Then the "others" must get off their ar$e$ and work smarter/harder to get more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But you have proposed equality of results. I assume by your quote that you assume that if the top 1%'s wealth grows by a certain percentage, that you would want the bottom fifth's to grow by an equal amount. If that is not the case, please explain your point better.

---

I'll explain the point better:

Alan Kohler who is the ABC's economics journalist quoted this from the New York Times:

Alan Kohler. | alankohler.com.au
http://www.alankohler.com.au/sites/a...%20unhappy.png

Assuming an index of 100 for both cases in 1979, in 2011 the average family wage is now indexed at 137.49 whilst the top 1% has now reached an index level of 350.80.
Although indexes do not tell you the whole story, they do tell you that an average family wage is now only 37% higher than it was in 1979, whilst the for the top 1% it's 250% higher.
I ask you, is that fair?


And why is it that something as American as "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet" is now produced in Vietnam, Thailand, Kazakhstan and India?
America has already proven that given the opportunity people and forms would pay workers nothing if they could get away with it.

This video is fun if you've got 10 minutes:
Despotism : Encyclopaedia Britannica Films : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
Now ask yourself, how does America rate in 2011?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Does this not indicate, then, that for far too many people work is not a sufficiently pleasurable experience to want to do it for reasons other than the money?

---

I don't question that at all, that is why it is called work and not called play. But reality states that there are a great number of jobs that very few people would find pleasurable. Those jobs require other incentives to get people interested and for many the primary incentive is wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Think of it as an insurable risk question. People who are richer in society have a greater quantifiable interest in making sure that the society which enabled their wealth in the first place remains cohesive.

---

I would agree with that. But I leave it up to the businessmen to spend their money as they see fit. If they asked my advice, I would advise them to give to charities, work programs, training, etc. But there should not be any governmental mechanism that would FORCE them to do so.

I'll make a distinction a bit clearer. My arguments are not about what is right or wrong morally. On the moral front, I'm probably more "progressive" than many here would think. However I do not think that governments should FORCE my views of morality upon anyone. Now here comes Ben arguing that by being against abortion, I am forcing my morality upon someone. But I am not, I am protecting someone's right to life.