Socialism

[Berkut]

That is all dandy, but doesn't speak to the issue at all. Anecdotes rarely do when the issue is claims made about the results of statistical surveys.

Certainly, proper studies of significant data is much more valid than anecdotal data. You, however, have offered neither.

But I am not the one making the claim that unions aren't really about money after all.

I am pretty much ok with the conventional wisdom that there might be some relationship, even a rather significant one, between people joining unions and their desire for more money.

[crazy canuck]

This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

The funny thing is that from this side of the fence it Yi who is making the outlandish claim.  As I said, the ideological barriers are at times very large.

Also, strawman much.  The fact that the academic literature isnt a link away somehow makes me wrong.  Are you really going to dumb down to that level?

[Berkut]

This is the sort of thing that in the academic literature and so not easy to link with a google search to wiki.  If you guys are interested by all means go look it up.

If you have no interest and simply want to reject anything that does not conform to your existing belief system then that is also fine with me.

Ahh,  so you make a claim, I question the applicability, and the only options are "Look up my claim yourself" and "You are just rejecting anything I say!"

Are you sure there isn't some other possibilities in there?

The funny thing is that from this side of the fence it Yi who is making the outlandish claim.  As I said, the ideological barriers are at time very large.

Certainly entirely possible. I have no opinion on Yi's claim - actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

I am just not willing to accept YOUR claim. A lot less willing now that it seems clear that the study you remember may not actually exist.

[The Minsky Moment]

Society destroying greed?

Dude, greed is the engine of the world.
Everything human civilization have ever achieved have been because of someones' greed.

So let's say the Iranians offered to triple your pay for the rest of your life and hired you to help them fight the Great and Little Satans.
Deal?

[crazy canuck]

actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

[fhdz]

I would work for Yi. Do you have any openings in the Portland area?

[crazy canuck]

I would work for Yi. Do you have any openings in the Portland area?

[Admiral Yi]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

[Berkut]

actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

What a bizarre thing to say. Why are you trying to hard to turn this into something personal?

I just want to know what the source of your study is, and see how they went about arriving at their conclusions. Is that such a terrible thing to ask that you are justified in responding with these personal attacks?

This has nothing to do with ideology or politics.

[Berkut]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

If these are the basic claims CC is talking about, I am with him.

There are not "motivators" that are only money and "demotivators" that are not money. That is just a circular definition.

People do work for various reasons, and people are demotivated for working for various reasons. The primary reason *most* people work is for money. It is not the only reason.

IMO, CC and Jake are right to reject the idea that money is the only motivating reason to work.

But that is kind og throing the baby out with the bathwater. Money is not the only reason...but it is the primary reason for the vast majority of people under the vast majority of circumstances.

[crazy canuck]

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you, though I'd suggest that maybe you communicated with less than 100% clarity.

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

If these are the basic claims CC is talking about, I am with him.

There are not "motivators" that are only money and "demotivators" that are not money. That is just a circular definition.

People do work for various reasons, and people are demotivated for working for various reasons. The primary reason *most* people work is for money. It is not the only reason.

IMO, CC and Jake are right to reject the idea that money is the only motivating reason to work.

But that is kind og throing the baby out with the bathwater. Money is not the only reason...but it is the primary reason for the vast majority of people under the vast majority of circumstances.

Yi, hasn't really captured what I said as I did not discount the importance of money but rather suggested it is not the only motivativing force.

Here is what I did say which I am surprised is in any way contraversial.

Not really.  Money is a major component but non monetary benefits like flexibility in hours of work can also work wonders to increase productivity

. 

[crazy canuck]

actually, I am not even sure what claim you are refering to.

That much is obvious.

So basically this is just Berkut in attack mode without actually know why he is in attack mode.  Ok.

What a bizarre thing to say. Why are you trying to hard to turn this into something personal?

I just want to know what the source of your study is, and see how they went about arriving at their conclusions. Is that such a terrible thing to ask that you are justified in responding with these personal attacks?

This has nothing to do with ideology or politics.

And I told you it is not something that can be linked.  I could go back into my files and find the titles of the research I have read over the years.  But really what is the point. I am not going to scan the papers and send them to you.  Either you are willing to accept my years of experience looking at these issues are you are not.  I dont really care one way or the other.

[Jacob]

Then I will try again.

1. Seedy asks a (rhetorical?) question about the abolition of the market. I respond people are motivated to perform labor by two things, money and force.

2. CC introduces working conditions as additional motivator.

3. I respond that favorable working conditions are not a motivator in and of themselves, as demonstrated by the observation that no one works for free in a comfy chair.  Rather that unpleasant working conditions are a demotivator.  Of course removing these demotivators increases workers' satisfaction.

4. I point out to Grab On that whether you call the comfy chair a motivator or the absence a demotivator is irrelevant to the original point, which is that in the absence of market prices you must coerce labor.

Ah... okay. That is unobjectionable on the whole. I mean, you don't account for voluntary labour/ charity; but that is tangential.

I think the confusion came in around the use of the word motivator. You were using it to describe the impetus to perform labour at all, versus not working. CC, on the other hand was speaking of motivators as a means to get more productivity out of your work force. The two concepts are related but not interchangeable.

Since you were not speaking to how to get your workforce to be more productive (nor, it seems to motivations for unionizing), I retract my comments about your management philosophy. You can totally work for me (while I can't pay you anything right now, the conditions are pretty good)

[Admiral Yi]

Fair enough Throbby.  Many people for example do volunteer work.  Back when the military was a poorly paid job many people joined anyway because of a sense of obligation or other intangibles.  People enter the religious life because of a higher calling.

And that's not that different than the Communist method of incentivizing work through stirring speeches, belief in the cause, and solidarity.  But all these other motivators still fail to deliver the output that the pricing mechanism does.  Just take a look at the explosion in Chinese GDP.

[Berkut]

Fair enough Throbby.  Many people for example do volunteer work.  Back when the military was a poorly paid job many people joined anyway because of a sense of obligation or other intangibles.  People enter the religious life because of a higher calling.

And that's not that different than the Communist method of incentivizing work through stirring speeches, belief in the cause, and solidarity.  But all these other motivators still fail to deliver the output that the pricing mechanism does.  Just take a look at the explosion in Chinese GDP.

No argument from me.

The reality is that most of the "other" motivational tools are particular in their application. If you want to talk about *general* motivators for work that are largely applicable across different contexts, there really is just one practical one - money.