Wealth

Some may consider the elimination of monetary incentives for work as socialist in some ways. It does indeed fall in line with equal distribution of wealth across a population. And as a result, there would be no hierarchy of professions defined by economic status. Doctors, lawyers, and professors would have the same income and privileges as factory workers, janitors, and department store clerks. And perhaps there would then be a greater diversity of professions in general. Those that truly wanted to be musicians may not have to settle for it being a hobby so they can pursue "real" careers. People would be intrinsically motivated to fulfill their true desires, rather than motivated by material means. Whether social hierarchy will be completely extinguished, however, is debatable, as the issue surely goes deeper than wealth. Yet, equal wealth distribution would be a step in that direction.

It would be interesting to observe how eliminating monetary incentives would affect certian institutions and people's productivity. People may be inherently lazy, and choose jobs that don't require much effort, which is fine theoretically. But if such happens on a mass scale, fields that require advanced and special skills may decline. People often say, "I like to stay busy", but whether this trait is something learned or inherent is up for discussion. It may be that these same people simply became used to the U.S. culture of working hard or being in a time crunch and never truly experienced being able to sit back and relax. Whatever the case, the value of education could be in serious question when it doesn't matter where you end up after schooling anyway.

One could make the argument that in capitalistic societies, salaries are proportional to the amount of "good" one does for society. Being a janitor is noble, but cleaning requires no significantly unique skills, new innovations, nor are its effects broad reaching. Doctors, lawyers, and investment bankers, however, affect the advancement of medicine, justice, and the economy respectively, and all these professions require special, learned skills. Even those who advance the world of art, entertainment, or sports receive monetary rewards correlated with the individual's skill and how many people they affect. And surely, these professions are just as legitimate as those formerly mentioned.

The difference comes at the extremes. Namely, there is correlation, but it is not proportional. Derek Jeter's salary went from $11,000,000 in 2001 to $21,600,000 this year (sports.espn.go.com). Yes, what he does is spectacular, even arguably worth millions, but definitely not $21,600,000. And he is getting paid twice as much for aging 8 years and and possibly getting worse. Derek Jeter is the reason no one goes into education. Your favorite elementary school teacher proably makes five hundred times less than Jeter, his superintendent a little more than that, and any higher administrators a little more than that. The same discrepancy exists between CEOs and family doctors, and many other professions. Thus the bias is revealed and consequently the flaw in the money incentive. Rather than achievement defining the reward, it very much acts the other way around. The prospect of wealth can and does compromise people's intentions. If you want proof, look no further than big tobacco's advertising campaigns.

References

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=3246

Motivation and Progress

The last post talked about progress as opposed to evolution and briefly explored the question of why we progress. The working definitions established were that evolution is a form of progress that is involuntary because it is controlled by factors that determine survival. Progress can be voluntary however, but if so, should not be deemed evolution. Furthermore, any progress beyond evolution is voluntary, even though it may not be practiced as such. To clarify, consider the following example:

More buildings in tornado and hurricane prone areas accomodate storm shelters to protect inhabitants from these dangerous occurences, while more luxury condominiums are being erected in Harlem, NY to appeal to a new influx of wealthier residents.

The latter example of gentrification may be considered progress to some, as it could benefit those in real estate by boosting property values and attracting new businesses to the area. However, the typically lower-income, native Harlem residents may have an opposite take on the issue, as they may see less available affordable housing, rising rent prices, and people being pushed out of their homes as a detriment to Harlem instead. As a long time Harlem resident, these opinions are not assumptions, but come from first-hand experience.

Perhaps providing more affordable housing would be considered progress to native Harlem residents. Whatever the case, this example contrasts the first example about storm shelters, because most if not all people would agree that storm shelters are not simply a good idea, but are necessary to ensure the safety of residents in those areas. Furthermore, those without storm shelters are subject to physical harm and possibly death, which follows the protocol for evolution, that is, those without traits necessary for survival are eliminated. This fact demonstrates another important distinction between evolution and progress: evolution always occurs in groups, whereas progress does not have to.

In fact, since definitions of progress can conflict between people and populations, progress beyond evolution should always occur on an individual level unless the definition of progress aligns amongst a group of individuals. Such is not the case across the world and most certainly not in the United States, as value systems impose controversial precedents for progress from the top down. People are forced to work for corporations whose philosophies may not parallel their own. People are driven by the prospect of wealth rather than personal fulfillment. Perhaps the notion of working for what you believe in is only available in an ideal society. Nonetheless, its absence from the present proves that currently these societies are not perfect. Throughout history struggles for self-determination have occurred, but apparently, the fight is not over.