2 ms·

The typical argument is that wealth is a good motivator. If a person's work improves the total lot of the world by quantity X, and it's distributed pseudorando

by amalcon 17y ago

The typical argument is that wealth is a good motivator. If a person's work improves the total lot of the world by quantity X, and it's distributed pseudorandomly, that's good. If the extra motivation helps them improve the total lot of the world by 2X, they keep 25% of that, and the rest is distributed pseudorandomly, that would seem to be better. There are a lot of assumptions in there that some people don't like to talk about. Fairness of the pseudorandom function and other forms of motivation are obvious ones, but there are many more. It's still a credible argument for why disparity in wealth could possibly be a necessary consequence of something good. It's just not a credible argument that this is necessarily the case.

silentbicycle 17y ago
> The typical argument is that wealth is a good motivator. It can be a good demotivator when the disparity is large and hard work seems unrewarded, though - it can nurture a fatalistic outlook in which the rich are rich because the game is rigged, they "chose the right parents", etc., rather than working hard to get there. The rewards have to seem attainable.
- amalcon 17y ago
  Yes, that would be another example of an assumption: that the disparity does not grow large enough for this to be common. This one would seem particularly unfounded.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  because the game is rigged That's exactly what pg was referring to when he spoke of historical contexts and the controls other than the market in allocating wealth.
david927 17y ago
That's all paper and pencil thinking. I would humbly suggest looking out your window. By your same reasoning, the longer a person is unemployed, the more they would desire becoming employed and the more motivated they would become. The reality is the opposite: they become more and more defeated, they feel more and more hopeless. There have been some very interesting studies done on this by a Stanford professor with children from the projects. (I'll look it up if you're interested.) The feeling of despair and hopelessness sets in very early. I understand the theory you're presenting; however, I have found the opposite to occur in reality.
- amalcon 17y ago
  It seems prudent to note that, though I described the theory, I do not subscribe to it. As I said, it's based on a lot of assumptions that its subscribers don't like to talk about, and most of them are not well founded assumptions.

by amalcon 17y ago

silentbicycle 17y ago

> The typical argument is that wealth is a good motivator. It can be a good demotivator when the disparity is large and hard work seems unrewarded, though - it can nurture a fatalistic outlook in which the rich are rich because the game is rigged, they "chose the right parents", etc., rather than working hard to get there. The rewards have to seem attainable.

amalcon 17y ago
Yes, that would be another example of an assumption: that the disparity does not grow large enough for this to be common. This one would seem particularly unfounded.
run4yourlives 17y ago
because the game is rigged That's exactly what pg was referring to when he spoke of historical contexts and the controls other than the market in allocating wealth.

david927 17y ago

That's all paper and pencil thinking. I would humbly suggest looking out your window. By your same reasoning, the longer a person is unemployed, the more they would desire becoming employed and the more motivated they would become. The reality is the opposite: they become more and more defeated, they feel more and more hopeless. There have been some very interesting studies done on this by a Stanford professor with children from the projects. (I'll look it up if you're interested.) The feeling of despair and hopelessness sets in very early. I understand the theory you're presenting; however, I have found the opposite to occur in reality.

amalcon 17y ago
It seems prudent to note that, though I described the theory, I do not subscribe to it. As I said, it's based on a lot of assumptions that its subscribers don't like to talk about, and most of them are not well founded assumptions.