Would there be any reason to do well in school, behave yourself in public, (for example, gangs, vandalism, stealing, or violent behaviors ) or abuse drugs or alcohol if you knew that you were going to get paid the same as someone who was fairly, um, for the lack of a better word, righteous? Indeed, if you were caught doing something, you would end up in jail or prison, but when you got out, you have just as good a chance at a job as the next guy. My opinion is that if you are a decent citizen, you should enjoy the preferential scale in pay. You put in the time, made the sacrifices to stay out of trouble and the reward should be a better life than the the slacker.
2006-06-26 09:19:55 · 7 answers · asked by Horndog 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
This was one of the big problems of Marxism. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If you take away the rewards for hard work, who will want to work hard? Of course, it's not all about wages. Some people chose to work for less money at a job they love rather than for more money at a job they hate. There are other types of rewards that also motivate us, but we all expect a certain amount of fairness. Respect, perks, money, whatever, should go in larger quantity to those who work hardest. Of course, it gets complicated when you realize the difference that ability makes. A smart person may work more efficiently and produce more than a less intellectually-endowed person. Both may be working to the best of their ability. In our society, the smarter, more productive, person will usually earn more. I think that's what Marx was trying to "fix" by rewarding both equally. It isn't "fair" that some are born smarter or more capable than others. However, take away the profit motive and the smart person is going to realize that it's dumb to work any harder than he needs to in order to match the work of the dumb person. That's different than your quandary of you vs. the slacker, but the result is the same. Without a profit motive, productivity sinks.
2006-06-26 09:42:18 · answer #1 · answered by just♪wondering 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
It's human nature to be on top. They may get the same wage, but who gets more praises from the boss? Who is given better vacation days? Who has more pocket money? Who has a nicer house; a nicer-looking husband/wife? Are the kids fat and lazy or are they intelligent all-star athletes? Is the dog a purebreed? Can it do tricks? How much money are you willing to spend on such-and-such trip compared to the loser next to you?
So, yes, there would be plenty of reason to excel.
A person will always try to be that one inch better than those around him.
2006-06-26 16:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by Belie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like socialism, I think history has shown that it really does not work.. Don't take that as social programs do not work, but there always has to be a reason to "push" or get ahead, without everyone loses
2006-06-26 16:25:28 · answer #3 · answered by hardmnymike 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're assuming that all motivation is external. But that's not the case. Some people are intrinsically motivated to always do the best they can, no matter what the extrinsic motivation may be.
2006-06-26 16:24:41 · answer #4 · answered by johnslat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
only reason to excel is because you have pride in what you do-money doesnt come in to play i have seen disnwashers in kitchens work as hard as anyone with no hope of good pay-old hippie here
2006-06-26 16:26:31 · answer #5 · answered by bergice 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think so too, but we are not in a perfect world, are we? So why bother asking the question?
2006-06-26 16:25:09 · answer #6 · answered by Joy RP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't that called Communism
2006-06-26 16:23:50 · answer #7 · answered by Bassetlover 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋