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
No comments:
Post a Comment