7 ms·

If You Think Free Money Kills Work Ethic, Your Definition of “Work” Is Horrible

13 points by joeyespo 11y ago

DougN7 11y ago
How many kids would slog through college and medical school out of purely altruistic reasons? I think 5% of those that enter the medical profession? And that cook who makes a meal for a whole restauant? Who cleans his dishes and tables when he's done? And almost nobody would volunteer to be a shoe salesman. This cherry-picked utopian view works for a 5% of the economy and workers out there. But not in reality that I've experienced.
- akgerber 11y ago
  In the context of a basic income, being a doctor will still convey wealth and status, in addition to altruistic satisfaction. Perhaps no one would be a dishwasher for a price people are willing to pay, and restaurants have people bring or wash their own dishes. Would that be terrible? I would feel good about that, personally. Or people would wash dishes because they wanted more money, as I did in high school, despite being provided with food, clothes, shelter, a computer, and access to a car by my parents. And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm Basic income wouldn't mean the end of work— just the end of people being forced to work by fear of homelessness. That just means people would clean septic tanks because they'd get paid a lot of money so they can buy motorcycles or take awesome vacations or whatever, and septic tank installers would have to compete to offer good working conditions so that an unpleasant but necessary task is palatable enough that people would be glad to do it in exchange for good enough money.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    I guess I'm not talking about basic income as much as money not being a good motivator for work. Basic income might become necessary if there aren't enough jobs to go around to keep people alive. But until that point, where machines do all the work, it's not feasible. >And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm How many would sit in the mall for 40 hours per week? That's the fallacy -- that enough people like doing something so much that they would do it enough to make up for the hordes of people that would stop doing it if not paid. > people bring or wash their own dishes Who will make the dishes? And the dish washing detergent? And the bottles to hold the detergent? And the refinery to make the plastic for the bottles? And dig up the stuff to supply the refinery? And construct the refinery? This is why so many -ism's are a seductive idea, but don't work in reality, because the narrative focuses on just the last step or so of a very long supply chain full of unpleasant work for someone else.
kdamken 11y ago
Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12 hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do? This article is arguing against the wrong point. If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. Some people would be lazy, because humans are inherently pretty lazy, but a lot of people would work on things they're passionate about. Work sucks for most people: “Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.” -George Carlin
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.) Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)
  - WalterSear 11y ago
    If garbage men made $50k, and everyone got $50k, the choice would be, do nothing for $50k or make $100k as a garbage man. Would we get less garbage men? Not necessarily. I don't think people will be any less inclined to do unpleasant jobs per se - they still pay the same. What we will see however, is a massive change in employment at >underpaid< jobs. "Picking lettuces for $2/hour? Fuck that, I won't starve if I don't, any more. Come back when you have a business model that doesn't involve abuse." I don't see any problem with that. Industries that rely on making their employees choose between penury and destitution need to go the way of the slave plantations. It's our duty as humans to move forward.
    - 11y ago
snockerton 11y ago
Was hoping for good read on economics, found guy whining about his parents' views.
criddell 11y ago
> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic at all. I call it a fear of being broke. It’s like saying the only reason you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison. So free money doesn't kill a person's work ethic, it merely removes a person's motivation to work. I don't see how that alters the argument against free money (basic income). If I could afford to retire from my job today, I would. I could stay busy the rest of my life, no problem.
emeraldd 11y ago
A refresher on http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-re... is in order.
paulus_magnus2 11y ago
“If we gave free money to everyone, no one would have any motivation to work.” Your definition of "money" is horrible. [ducks and covers]
oolongCat 11y ago
tldr of this article to me screams, "If you don't hold the same opinion about this as me, you are horrible." If you think someone who works for the sake of money is a "horrible" person, you have to step outside your bubble for a tiny bit and look at the world, you will notice so many important jobs in society no one would really want to do unless money was an intensive. Don't get me wrong, I am one of those people who are lucky enough to work in an industry I am honestly excited to work in. But you can't say the same about many jobs, doubt you can find a janitor who loves cleaning piss and vomit, its an absolutely important job in our society, the only reason I could think of why someone would do it is because of their situation in life and how the money earned from it can give them a partial answer to their problems. Seriously HN what hell are you guys up-voting to the front page these days.
- Jtsummers 11y ago
  I don't think this author has articulated their point well. If they have, then their point is poorly reasoned and considered. BUT If you think someone who works for the sake of money is a "horrible" person This is not, at all, in the article. The author's thesis is that "money is motivation for work" is a horrific definition of work. Not that the people who hold that view, or the people who are motivated to work for money, are horrible people.
  - oolongCat 11y ago
    You are right, I have made a mistake on my part. But I still think when it comes to this article this should not be up-voted to the front, the main argument in this article is just fundamentally wrong. I feel the author is in a bubble and has no idea what so many people around the world have to go through, and that not everyone is lucky enough to work on things they love.
alexashka 11y ago
I had a change of heart about this recently - from realizing that overcoming challenges, is what's had the most positive impact on me, and those around me. Really, the people advocating basic-income are those who think 'if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do!', but if they dug a little deeper, they'd realize that's just an excuse. Anyone who wants to work their ass off, and sacrifice the near future for the long term payoff - USA/Canada are incredible incredible places to do it. You can live in a basement, work night shift security where you get to do whatever you want, for the majority of your shift. There are 100 other examples of making it work where you sacrifice in the short term for your long term goal but truth is - people who are wishing for basic income, are wishing they didn't have to struggle so much. When you get over the hump and see how much more understanding you have of the world around you and of yourself as a result of the struggle, you'll feel differently. Again, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were easier, but don't believe the fairytale of some outside factor making it or breaking it in you achieving success - it is all you. And it'll always be all you. Nobody else. Not the government, not your boss. You.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Really, the people advocating basic-income are those who think 'if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do!' No, you're just wrong. There are lots of different reasons people support UBI, and "if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do" isn't particularly high on the list. E.g., many proponents like UBI because they see it as more efficient than means- and behavior-tested benefit programs that consume lots of resources and make life miserable for potential beneficiaries with high-touch bureaucracies designed to apply the means- and behavior-testing.
  - DougN7 11y ago
    I've been sort of in favor of UBI, but these discussions have made me realize it can never work. Let's say we give everyone $50K. Why not $50 billion? I'm being serious - the same effect ends up happening -- prices increase proportionately. I'm basing that on the idea that 90+% of work that happens today really does need to happen. That means that 90%+ of those working today will need to be enticed to keep working by giving them more money. Now almost everyone has more money, but the same limited supply of goods and services are available. Prices will rise -- simple supply and demand. Those on UBI will fall behind if they don't work.
jjn2009 11y ago
> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic at all. I call it a fear of being broke. The assumption the author is making is that there is only one extreme or the other. Either you work for some sense of meaning or you work for money out of fear but both cannot be true at the same time. Its the spectrum of these two things which allow for work ethic. If a job allows for a range of differing amounts of effort and some employees decide to put forth more effort because or work ethic then regardless of the fact that everyone fears a lack of money there is still potential for work ethic. >It’s like saying the only reason you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison. While most humans have empathy, to write off the importance of fear is extremely naive. Prison is in fact the only reason why some people would not do these things, or if they end up doing so we incur that penalty to hopefully create more fear.
Jtsummers 11y ago
This article author and their parents seem to think that there will be no income other than a UBI. Which is, well, bizarre. Menial jobs will still be done. But you may not have full-time staff for it. Garbage collection will still be done, you'll just pay better. People will still go to med school, because they'll get prestige (major motivator today) and more money (major motivator today). The main difference (assuming affordability of a UBI, I'm not addressing that), between a non-UBI and a UBI situation is that people have a guaranteed subsistence income. Not a guaranteed life of leisure. We can't promise $50k/year/person. We can't even reasonably promise $5k/year/person (in the US). I don't know whether a UBI makes any sense (fiscally) or what level to set it at, but dismissing it because "people won't work" or "people won't become doctors" is, frankly, moronic.

13 points by joeyespo 11y ago

How many kids would slog through college and medical school out of purely altruistic reasons? I think 5% of those that enter the medical profession? And that cook who makes a meal for a whole restauant? Who cleans his dishes and tables when he's done? And almost nobody would volunteer to be a shoe salesman. This cherry-picked utopian view works for a 5% of the economy and workers out there. But not in reality that I've experienced.

akgerber 11y ago
In the context of a basic income, being a doctor will still convey wealth and status, in addition to altruistic satisfaction. Perhaps no one would be a dishwasher for a price people are willing to pay, and restaurants have people bring or wash their own dishes. Would that be terrible? I would feel good about that, personally. Or people would wash dishes because they wanted more money, as I did in high school, despite being provided with food, clothes, shelter, a computer, and access to a car by my parents. And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm Basic income wouldn't mean the end of work— just the end of people being forced to work by fear of homelessness. That just means people would clean septic tanks because they'd get paid a lot of money so they can buy motorcycles or take awesome vacations or whatever, and septic tank installers would have to compete to offer good working conditions so that an unpleasant but necessary task is palatable enough that people would be glad to do it in exchange for good enough money.
- DougN7 11y ago
  I guess I'm not talking about basic income as much as money not being a good motivator for work. Basic income might become necessary if there aren't enough jobs to go around to keep people alive. But until that point, where machines do all the work, it's not feasible. >And there are plenty of people out there that are very passionate about shoes, and would share that enthusiasm How many would sit in the mall for 40 hours per week? That's the fallacy -- that enough people like doing something so much that they would do it enough to make up for the hordes of people that would stop doing it if not paid. > people bring or wash their own dishes Who will make the dishes? And the dish washing detergent? And the bottles to hold the detergent? And the refinery to make the plastic for the bottles? And dig up the stuff to supply the refinery? And construct the refinery? This is why so many -ism's are a seductive idea, but don't work in reality, because the narrative focuses on just the last step or so of a very long supply chain full of unpleasant work for someone else.

kdamken 11y ago

Of course most people only work to make money. Why else would they spend 8-12 hours of their day doing something they don't want/like to do? This article is arguing against the wrong point. If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. Some people would be lazy, because humans are inherently pretty lazy, but a lot of people would work on things they're passionate about. Work sucks for most people: “Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called EVERYBODY, and they meet at the bar.” -George Carlin

dragonwriter 11y ago
> If everyone had free money, yes, people would stop being garbage men. If everyone had free money but garbage collection wasn't fully automated first, garbage collectors would have higher pay and/or better working conditions and opportunities for advancement, because people aren't going to want to sit around in their own garbage, they are going to want it picked up, and be willing to pay to have that done (and, if it stops getting done in the short term, there going to be willing to pay more to have it done.) Free money doesn't remove the motivation to work when you can get more money for working. (Now, if you lose the free money when you work, then, sure, that kills motivation to work, which is actually one of the problems with means-tested welfare programs that UBI seeks to address.)
- WalterSear 11y ago
  If garbage men made $50k, and everyone got $50k, the choice would be, do nothing for $50k or make $100k as a garbage man. Would we get less garbage men? Not necessarily. I don't think people will be any less inclined to do unpleasant jobs per se - they still pay the same. What we will see however, is a massive change in employment at >underpaid< jobs. "Picking lettuces for $2/hour? Fuck that, I won't starve if I don't, any more. Come back when you have a business model that doesn't involve abuse." I don't see any problem with that. Industries that rely on making their employees choose between penury and destitution need to go the way of the slave plantations. It's our duty as humans to move forward.
  - 11y ago

snockerton 11y ago

Was hoping for good read on economics, found guy whining about his parents' views.

criddell 11y ago

> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic at all. I call it a fear of being broke. It’s like saying the only reason you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison. So free money doesn't kill a person's work ethic, it merely removes a person's motivation to work. I don't see how that alters the argument against free money (basic income). If I could afford to retire from my job today, I would. I could stay busy the rest of my life, no problem.

emeraldd 11y ago

A refresher on http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01EZG9NQQ/ref=dp-kindle-re... is in order.

paulus_magnus2 11y ago

“If we gave free money to everyone, no one would have any motivation to work.” Your definition of "money" is horrible. [ducks and covers]

oolongCat 11y ago

tldr of this article to me screams, "If you don't hold the same opinion about this as me, you are horrible." If you think someone who works for the sake of money is a "horrible" person, you have to step outside your bubble for a tiny bit and look at the world, you will notice so many important jobs in society no one would really want to do unless money was an intensive. Don't get me wrong, I am one of those people who are lucky enough to work in an industry I am honestly excited to work in. But you can't say the same about many jobs, doubt you can find a janitor who loves cleaning piss and vomit, its an absolutely important job in our society, the only reason I could think of why someone would do it is because of their situation in life and how the money earned from it can give them a partial answer to their problems. Seriously HN what hell are you guys up-voting to the front page these days.

Jtsummers 11y ago
I don't think this author has articulated their point well. If they have, then their point is poorly reasoned and considered. BUT If you think someone who works for the sake of money is a "horrible" person This is not, at all, in the article. The author's thesis is that "money is motivation for work" is a horrific definition of work. Not that the people who hold that view, or the people who are motivated to work for money, are horrible people.
- oolongCat 11y ago
  You are right, I have made a mistake on my part. But I still think when it comes to this article this should not be up-voted to the front, the main argument in this article is just fundamentally wrong. I feel the author is in a bubble and has no idea what so many people around the world have to go through, and that not everyone is lucky enough to work on things they love.

alexashka 11y ago

I had a change of heart about this recently - from realizing that overcoming challenges, is what's had the most positive impact on me, and those around me. Really, the people advocating basic-income are those who think 'if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do!', but if they dug a little deeper, they'd realize that's just an excuse. Anyone who wants to work their ass off, and sacrifice the near future for the long term payoff - USA/Canada are incredible incredible places to do it. You can live in a basement, work night shift security where you get to do whatever you want, for the majority of your shift. There are 100 other examples of making it work where you sacrifice in the short term for your long term goal but truth is - people who are wishing for basic income, are wishing they didn't have to struggle so much. When you get over the hump and see how much more understanding you have of the world around you and of yourself as a result of the struggle, you'll feel differently. Again, there's nothing wrong with wishing it were easier, but don't believe the fairytale of some outside factor making it or breaking it in you achieving success - it is all you. And it'll always be all you. Nobody else. Not the government, not your boss. You.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Really, the people advocating basic-income are those who think 'if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do!' No, you're just wrong. There are lots of different reasons people support UBI, and "if only I had the money so that I had the time, to do what I really want to do" isn't particularly high on the list. E.g., many proponents like UBI because they see it as more efficient than means- and behavior-tested benefit programs that consume lots of resources and make life miserable for potential beneficiaries with high-touch bureaucracies designed to apply the means- and behavior-testing.
- DougN7 11y ago
  I've been sort of in favor of UBI, but these discussions have made me realize it can never work. Let's say we give everyone $50K. Why not $50 billion? I'm being serious - the same effect ends up happening -- prices increase proportionately. I'm basing that on the idea that 90+% of work that happens today really does need to happen. That means that 90%+ of those working today will need to be enticed to keep working by giving them more money. Now almost everyone has more money, but the same limited supply of goods and services are available. Prices will rise -- simple supply and demand. Those on UBI will fall behind if they don't work.

jjn2009 11y ago

> If the only reason you work is to make money, I don’t call that work ethic at all. I call it a fear of being broke. The assumption the author is making is that there is only one extreme or the other. Either you work for some sense of meaning or you work for money out of fear but both cannot be true at the same time. Its the spectrum of these two things which allow for work ethic. If a job allows for a range of differing amounts of effort and some employees decide to put forth more effort because or work ethic then regardless of the fact that everyone fears a lack of money there is still potential for work ethic. >It’s like saying the only reason you don’t rape and murder is for fear of going to prison. While most humans have empathy, to write off the importance of fear is extremely naive. Prison is in fact the only reason why some people would not do these things, or if they end up doing so we incur that penalty to hopefully create more fear.

Jtsummers 11y ago

This article author and their parents seem to think that there will be no income other than a UBI. Which is, well, bizarre. Menial jobs will still be done. But you may not have full-time staff for it. Garbage collection will still be done, you'll just pay better. People will still go to med school, because they'll get prestige (major motivator today) and more money (major motivator today). The main difference (assuming affordability of a UBI, I'm not addressing that), between a non-UBI and a UBI situation is that people have a guaranteed subsistence income. Not a guaranteed life of leisure. We can't promise $50k/year/person. We can't even reasonably promise $5k/year/person (in the US). I don't know whether a UBI makes any sense (fiscally) or what level to set it at, but dismissing it because "people won't work" or "people won't become doctors" is, frankly, moronic.