4 ms·

How can government motivate people?

malandrew 9y ago
Two questions and one observation: (1) Why is it the government's job to motivate people? Shouldn't people be motivated by their own self-interest? (2) The rise of bigger government and a welfare state might even be contributing to the problem, but debasing the impetus to train. Some carefully considered welfare can provide relief to an acute problem, but long term welfare is counterproductive.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  If it's the company that benefits from the training, shouldn't it be the company's job to train people? Why should our government and workers subsidize company training with student loans?
  - malandrew 9y ago
    Your tone suggests you're arguing against me, but we're both in agreement that this isn't the responsibility of government.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      My tone was a partial response to the phrase below, and a partial catchy soundbite to agree with your point that the government shouldn't step in. > Shouldn't people be motivated by their own self-interest? It should also be in the company's self-interest to train its workers, it's just because of a bad worker-employer leverage balance that they don't take advantage of that.
      - Clubber 9y ago
        They're all run by spreadsheets more so than intuition. Training is difficult to quantify. How to you quantify into dollars the difference between time, cost and results of training versus time, cost and result of putting out headhunters to fill the position with someone already trained? I mean most companies can't even interview well and it's a lot easier to just do it the old way that they've been doing it forever rather than stick your neck out and try something new and barely quantifiable if at all. Especially when HR has the final say.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rm2040 9y ago
lower taxes
- thephyber 9y ago
  I continue to hear this argument, but it isn't 1980. The top tax rate is a little of half what it was then and the lowest marginal income tax rate is still 0% for those who make much below the national average. Those who are currently unemployed would not be directly affected by federal income tax rate changes (except perhaps if the "base is widened" as many fiscal conservatives want). You can look at Kansas for the problems that are caused by policymakers blindly lowering taxes without respect for the likely consequences. * Converting social program cliffs into gradients would incentivize people to seek alternatives to unemployment insurance. * Amnesty for those currently on SSDI if they go back to work (going on disability requires filing a federal form stating that you are physically/mentally unable to work, so later going back to work is effectively fraud). * Convert programs like {Section 8 housing, Food stamps, etc} to a UBI-like cash program without a cliff when you get a job. Don't penalize people for making a minimal amount of income.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Lower taxes for anyone making less than $1M a year. :)
    - davidjnelson 9y ago
      Yes please.
sogen 9y ago
Government should enforce career caps nationwide, i.e. a max number of students allowed on positions where labor is abundant. They (government) also could spend the unemployment benefit towards training people instead of just giving them the money.
- malandrew 9y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with caps. I do however agree with not providing any federal financial aid in such circumstances. I'm also in favor of the government funding industry-led studies to forecast demand for labor in those industries. The government shouldn't performing such forecasting, but they can provide minimal financial support to make sure every industry forecasts its labor needs.
- wolco 9y ago
  Education can take a generation capping things today will led to shortages in the unknown future.
nmyk 9y ago
Make it so while you're retraining for a new job, your basic needs are all met.

Two questions and one observation: (1) Why is it the government's job to motivate people? Shouldn't people be motivated by their own self-interest? (2) The rise of bigger government and a welfare state might even be contributing to the problem, but debasing the impetus to train. Some carefully considered welfare can provide relief to an acute problem, but long term welfare is counterproductive.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
If it's the company that benefits from the training, shouldn't it be the company's job to train people? Why should our government and workers subsidize company training with student loans?
- malandrew 9y ago
  Your tone suggests you're arguing against me, but we're both in agreement that this isn't the responsibility of government.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    My tone was a partial response to the phrase below, and a partial catchy soundbite to agree with your point that the government shouldn't step in. > Shouldn't people be motivated by their own self-interest? It should also be in the company's self-interest to train its workers, it's just because of a bad worker-employer leverage balance that they don't take advantage of that.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      They're all run by spreadsheets more so than intuition. Training is difficult to quantify. How to you quantify into dollars the difference between time, cost and results of training versus time, cost and result of putting out headhunters to fill the position with someone already trained? I mean most companies can't even interview well and it's a lot easier to just do it the old way that they've been doing it forever rather than stick your neck out and try something new and barely quantifiable if at all. Especially when HR has the final say.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

rm2040 9y ago

lower taxes

thephyber 9y ago
I continue to hear this argument, but it isn't 1980. The top tax rate is a little of half what it was then and the lowest marginal income tax rate is still 0% for those who make much below the national average. Those who are currently unemployed would not be directly affected by federal income tax rate changes (except perhaps if the "base is widened" as many fiscal conservatives want). You can look at Kansas for the problems that are caused by policymakers blindly lowering taxes without respect for the likely consequences. * Converting social program cliffs into gradients would incentivize people to seek alternatives to unemployment insurance. * Amnesty for those currently on SSDI if they go back to work (going on disability requires filing a federal form stating that you are physically/mentally unable to work, so later going back to work is effectively fraud). * Convert programs like {Section 8 housing, Food stamps, etc} to a UBI-like cash program without a cliff when you get a job. Don't penalize people for making a minimal amount of income.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Lower taxes for anyone making less than $1M a year. :)
  - davidjnelson 9y ago
    Yes please.

sogen 9y ago

Government should enforce career caps nationwide, i.e. a max number of students allowed on positions where labor is abundant. They (government) also could spend the unemployment benefit towards training people instead of just giving them the money.

malandrew 9y ago
I'm not sure I agree with caps. I do however agree with not providing any federal financial aid in such circumstances. I'm also in favor of the government funding industry-led studies to forecast demand for labor in those industries. The government shouldn't performing such forecasting, but they can provide minimal financial support to make sure every industry forecasts its labor needs.
wolco 9y ago
Education can take a generation capping things today will led to shortages in the unknown future.

nmyk 9y ago

Make it so while you're retraining for a new job, your basic needs are all met.