What are your incentives to work hard?

Mean growth was at about 1.8% a whole .8% above a recession.

 

I have a current passport and an expired one. The number of stamps they contain combined exceeds the number of years I’ve been alive. I’ve been to some countries multiple times, and many of them are for transit. I go skiing every year, and I flew to Jackson Hole, Wyoming in 2017 to see the eclipse.

Travel is expensive. So I work hard to afford it.

 

You should write a book. I would buy it. How did you like the eclipse? I happened to live in its prime path. I expected to be underwhelmed but I took my welding helmet in the tractor anyway. Man, I was wrong. It was one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever seen.

I can understand now why people showed up from all over the world. The main highway past my hood sees a car about every 10-15 minutes on average. For 45 minutes before and after the eclipse it looked like rush hour in LA.

 

This is somewhat tangintal to the OP but my first thought was wondering if how hard people work might be associated with their compensation being based on an hourly wage or salaried? I assume hourly wage compensation comes with rigid policy about tardiness or time off or flexible work times, etc. while salaried workers typically do not. An hourly wage earner is required to be ready at starting time and keep your head down until quitting time. While a salaried worker is more focused on completing their assignment. Therefore, I'm curious if salaried workers are happier than hourly workers, and if salaried workers have more personal incentives to work hard?

 

I agree to some degree, you need some fulfillment in your work to be driven, but I disagree about the money part. Money is the only reason people work otherwise you'd be competing with volunteers. The reason you go to college and take on debt is the hope of being able to pay it back.

 

I think a far greater motivator than money is the social status that work affords. If it was just about money, I'd guarantee you that there would be lots more folks trying to live on welfare.

Example: My son plays middle school football. He doesn't get paid for it, yet he works his behind off in practice. Why? Because the social status he gets from being a good player and scoring touchdowns.

 

While the money is nice for the food and shelter objective, the feeling of accomplishment is a factor. And retirement, about 5 years down the road.

What I do enables a mid to large company to employ 600+ employees, who make a living to support their lives. If I fail at my job, a number of people could end up unemployed, including me.

Pressure......

 

I’ve never been on a salary. I’ve worked by the hour and then self employed. The type of work always influenced my attitude more than the pay.

As an employer I haven’t employed large amounts of people but I’ve found pretty much the same performance salary or hourly. There have been a few I’ve seen will work obscene amounts of hours to get a big check but they are rare. What really surprised me in my line of work is how little the hourly wage affects performance. More pay does not equal increased productivity in my experience. Seems odd to me.

Interesting question I hope others with more experience chime in.

 

Popularity may matter to some. But it doesn't matter to me. Welfare isn't much. People work to make more. If it was enough everybody would be in it

he doesn't get paid for anything he does at school no student does. I doubt he doesn't enjoy playing football. People aren't often dedicated to popularity contests there are easier ways to be popular.

 

I guess what I was trying to say was perhaps salaried workers tend to focus on the task or goals while hourly workers tend to focus on breaks and lunch and quitting time. Salaried workers have a little more autonomy while hourly workers have almost no autonomy. I am greatly generalizing here but it seems to me in my scenarios the salaried workers might be happier workers?? Of course, whether they are salaried or hourly, they must be adequately managed.

I always thought pay or money was more of a negative motivator. An employer must hire workers who can satisfy the job demands, grow with the company, with minimal turnover and pay whatever compensation is necessary to achieve this. If we assume a specific job description in general is compensated about the same no matter the company, then there are other things that create happy workers other than pay.

Regarding productivity, an employee working 8 hours is required to meet a certain level of productivity. If you double their compensation, I don't see how a greater level of productivity can be achieved since the assumption is they are already meeting the demands of the job. IMO the level of pay allows a company to hire the appropriate workers, but there must be more than pay to sustain them and have them be productive and happy.

 

Yeh that makes sense.

Yes I’ve found some odd things that do motivate other than pay. Sometimes a benefit that is worth less than a pay raise is more desirable.

In my line it is nearly impossible to set a baseline of productivity. Tasks are too varied, unpredictable, and are reliant on self motivation/problem solving in real time. I suppose that’s why I expect more pay to equal more effort. You are likely correct the math alone can never overcome the underlying psychology or personality traits.

 

The maintenance of Personal Character, which is one (1) of the six (6) foundations that determines the true meaning, worth and value of the life of an individual. In sequence they are as follows:

- Ethics
- Morals
- Character
- Integrity
- Principles
- Priorities

The reason why we have a government crisis today; the reason why we have a crime crisis today; the reason why we have an Elder Care Abuse crisis today; the reason why we have any Social Ills plaguing society today, is precisely because the nation as a whole lacks depth in all six (6) of these absolute required foundations for a truly Civil Society. There are plenty of people that "work hard" and who still lack in these six (6) foundations which are absolute essentials for the development and maintenance of a decent individual and healthy civil society. Hard work is not enough. We will either evolve into this new foundational paradigm/reality, or we (society) will perish failing to do so.

The "incentives" for "hard work" are therefore, the establishment of a truly Civil Society. We don't have anything even remotely close to a truly Civil Society today. Not even feigning proximity to such a reality. This, of course, works solely on the assumption that a truly Civil Society is even desired by the masses at this point. An assumption that I no longer make, unfortunately.

 

Actually the concept has been around for a long time.

 

Maslow, unfortunately, focused on net effect. I'm targeting absolute causation in the individual as part of a linear transformation made possible with Time and within all levels of Civilization. Working from the other end of the model Maslow, I think partially perceived as being achievable through mere needs based self-awareness.

This approach is more painful at the outset because it requires generational transformation to bring about a new legacy profile in newly born people into this world (they would inherent eventually a new paradigm of thought and thus new behaviors supporting the new paradigm). In other words, it will require the sacrifice of current generations and their willingness to implement its tenets into their lives. Sacrifice takes real "hard work" and I don't think the masses are ready (capable at this stage in their evolution) to either see the need for such transformation or assume the personal responsibility required to make it happen.

In the model: "We get or become who we are" - there is no direct causation or link to duty required for the real transformation to happen. I believe that because there is so much psychological damage already extant within society, so much pathology deeply rooted in destructive behavior, even to the point of psychotic behaviors having been 'normalized' by society itself, I think real palpable transformation is not possible absent deeply anchored foundations that allow for such a transformation to take place. You can think of these six (6) anchors like an electrical bus. They don't do the transformation work themselves, but they enable or power the process of transformation. They make it possible and without them, no real positive transformation ever takes place to any sustainable degree.

The way we get there is by asking every question the Universe has about the six (6) foundations:

- Who
- What
- When
- Why
- Where
- How

It is interesting to note here that even with the vast size and scope of the Universe, it only contains six (6) questions. And, there's that number again: 6. Ask those six (6) universal questions about each of the six (6) foundations and you get 36-degrees of freedom into which transformation is rooted. For example:

- Who does Ethics apply to?
- What is Ethics?
- When does Ethics apply?
- Why is Ethics necessary?
- Where does Ethics apply?
- How do I apply Ethics?

Maslow, does not get into this. He doesn't even venture down this path for engaging transformation at the neurological level - building new neurosynaptic networks in the brain that adhere to these foundations. So, no, not quite. The process of transformation I'm referring to has not been around that long - because I created it within the past 10 years.

I'm talking about reprogramming the mind through transformation of neurosynapses and remapping of the central nervous system by way of generational external environmental inputs to the brain on a structured basis (full saturation). I'm talking about deciding to Evolve, instead of merely sitting around and waiting for it to happen. Maslow, can eat his heart out.

 

Conditioning. You planning on electroshock or just reprogramming the public education system?

 

Eventually AI and robotics are going to make virtually all human labor obsolete which will remove the financial foundation of our economy. No job equals no money.

It's really time we start preparing for that day before it gets here. The fundamental right of property has always been based upon the labor of the person because the person owns their own labor. I've considered alternative and the only other thing we individually own that can have value is what we learn and know. Knowledge has value. How do we receive monetary compensation based upon the acquisition of knowledge is the issue to be resolved.

 

Your "answer" assumes that no one actually finds enjoyment and personal fulfillment in what they do, meaning it doesn't look like you read the OP.

 

I find my work challenging, fulfilling, and meaningful, and the money has followed. I turned down higher paying jobs in the past because they asked me to compromise my values and/or couldn't provide the aforementioned challenge, fulfillment, or meaning, and I think I've ended up better off for it.

There's nothing wrong with money, but I'd have to agree that it doesn't make for much of a good end-pursuit. Money is always a means to an end, so I don't see why anyone would chase it as an end in itself.

As a side note (need to look this up), I think there is some pretty good research out there on rats showing that you can meet all of their material needs, but they'll eventually go nuts without mental stimulation. Giving them all of the food, water, shelter, and absence of predators that the could possibly want and things get apocalyptic -- you've taken all of their challenges away. I think most humans are the same way; creature comforts only get you so far. Work, fulfilling work, is more valuable for its mental stimulation than for the money alone. That's part of why the thought of retirement, even if I'm financially independent, terrifies me.

 

My list of things to do as well as the honey-do list, in retirement, comes to about 60 hours/week of work. When you add your personal interests to this, in retirement there is no shortage of things to do!

 

I think you need to consider that some remaining tasks can be automated but most will not be automated. Automation is complex and expensive and works best in high volume repetitive scenarios. Will automation remove all the labor from Ace Hardware's, gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, farms, medical services, schools, government, etc. etc.? Sure we can see how to automate 'some' parts of the places I mentioned, but, will it be practical, or cost effective, and what about perceived service? I think we will see more automation in areas in which labor remains a problem, however, I think the doom and gloom scenario is 100 years or more away...

 

I worked since I was 16. I took any job I could find from washing cars to cooking food. Since then I picked up a number of skills, one of which I am doing now. No matter if I got fired or not, I had a number of avenues to pursue. I currently have a position in a global company that was not an available position but came about from what I created. It is a very very low stress job. I am now on track to retire at 70 by choice which will max my SS.

 

So IOW, you worked hard when you had a stake in it and the results. In my case, I retired 12 years ago and since then I have worked hard developing my property because I have a stake in it.

So I think it's pretty important to the point of being essential that people have a stake in what they do. And that is what we get with worker-owned, worker-controlled cooperative corporations, in addition to the many other advantages they offer. We should make creating them simpler and more attainable.

 

I whole heartedly agree. And it undercuts the whole rational behind socialism, defined as worker control of the means of production. What can that mean if there are no workers?

I am less sure about this one, but it is interesting.

What concerns me is the Bezos' and Zuckerburgs of the future will come to believe that the mass of humanity, outside of themselves, of course, has no value but are "useless eaters." Might they not decide that a mass die-off is an ecological imperative?

Especially if the change themselves into supermen through gene editting or cybernetic enhancement.

 

Definitely family. 2 kids in college, a house to maintain (I'm old and my house is paid off). A wife that wants a comfortable life after I die some 7 years before her.

And video games. The PS5 aint gonna buy itself.