The Economics Thread

[Solace]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

TL; DR: Perhaps corporations would be less shitty if they were owned and run by their own workers, rather then disinterested distant shareholders.

This concept was touched on in Michael Moore's Capitalism movie:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/8C3LJ_uO3lY

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

But he's kind of easy to tear down.

Here's Richard Wolff. I'm sure most people wouldn't balk at a guy who has this for credentials:

BA in History from Harvard College (1963);
MA in Economics from Stanford University (1964);
MA in History from Yale University (1967); and a
PhD in Economics from Yale University (1969).

Right?

Yeah, they do.

The interview linked in that article:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/h8TiFx56pxU

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Solace

This concept was touched on in Michael Moore's Capitalism movie:

Moore comes at it from the point of view of "justice". My thinking is to actually come at it from the point of view of productivity. Engaged workers are naturally more productive then unengaged workers (particularly in modern operations where genuinely unskilled work is rare). However, to keep workers "engaged" the workers need to feel their workplace is "just". Workers won't give their all to a company if they feel exploited, and likewise senior management won't look to build a company's long term success if they can instead try to plunder it for their own short term gain.

I think the potential solution to both problems is workplace democracy in one form or another (though I think worker ownership is best).

Of course, I have little experience of the working world, so it's possible I'm in naive error.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

However, to keep workers "engaged" the workers need to feel their workplace is "just".

Or fear. Let them know they will be fired if they slack !

/assume union doesn't exist

[Anh_Minh]

It's not really a matter of unions. Fear is an inferior motivator. It stifles creativity and initiative, for starters. People might do what it takes to not get fired, but they won't do anything more.

(In plenty of fields, they'll get fired, pocket the severance pay or damages from abusive firing, and find another job. Even in this economy.)

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Moore comes at it from the point of view of "justice". My thinking is to actually come at it from the point of view of productivity. Engaged workers are naturally more productive then unengaged workers (particularly in modern operations where genuinely unskilled work is rare). However, to keep workers "engaged" the workers need to feel their workplace is "just". Workers won't give their all to a company if they feel exploited, and likewise senior management won't look to build a company's long term success if they can instead try to plunder it for their own short term gain.

I think the potential solution to both problems is workplace democracy in one form or another (though I think worker ownership is best).

Of course, I have little experience of the working world, so it's possible I'm in naive error.

I think your theory is correct from the perspective of quality products or services (ie a cooperative, especially with food products). When it comes to profit; cutting corners, cheaper, but less productive labor, etc can actually be a good thing. This is a general problem with the capitalist system.

[Solace]

On the topic of worker motivation, a fun RSAnimate:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/u6XAPnuFjJc

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[DonQuigleone]

@Solace, I pretty much agree with the video. On the point of money, I think beyond a certain point (likely somewhere between 50k-100k), more income indeed doesn't serve as much of a motivator. However, while workers will be happy enough with such wages, they won't be happy(and motivated to do great work) if they feel they're being treated unfairly when it comes to pay distribution. Pay won't go off the table so long as you see someone (unjustly) earning much more money then you. The best way to solve the problem of unjust unequal pay, I feel, is worker ownership, as then the workers share in the fruits of the company's success, and don't feel like they're being paid an unjustly low amount (particularly because they voted on the pay levels).

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's not really a matter of unions. Fear is an inferior motivator. It stifles creativity and initiative, for starters. People might do what it takes to not get fired, but they won't do anything more.

Very true. Furthermore, workers under such conditions will likely try to find ways to sabotage the product while their boss's back is turned. And if they have an idea that might really improve the business, they're not going to share it, perhaps because they hate the boss, or perhaps because they're afraid of the consequences if the boss dislikes their initiative.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I think your theory is correct from the perspective of quality products or services (ie a cooperative, especially with food products). When it comes to profit; cutting corners, cheaper, but less productive labor, etc can actually be a good thing. This is a general problem with the capitalist system.

Disagree. Profit is simply quality in another sphere, namely the production process. You can have a high quality process for producing cheap goods. To obtain such a high quality process you need the active involvement of every level of the workforce, and engage them in actively looking for ways to make the process more efficient. An unthinking unengaged workforce (even if they're manual workers), will in the long run lead to a worse, less efficient, more expensive(compared to competitors) operation. This is a basic principle of modern lean manufacturing.

Cutting corners indiscriminately, in the long run, rarely saves money. For instance, you might save a lot of money now by eliminating regular maintenance, but when a machine tool completely breaks down injuring several employees (who promptly sue the company for damages), all the while you need to also replace the machine. Suffice to say, no money was saved. That said, there's nothing wrong with calculated cost saving measures. For instance you could identify that a particular machine only needs half as much maintenance as it currently receives.

Corner cutting is a form of "short termism", and is perhaps a problem particularly visible in most corporate governance. Too many companies only focus on the next quarter, looking for quick easy fixes, while real success has to be built up over years. Again, I think a worker owned cooperative is more likely to focus on building for long term success then a conventional company. They don't have to up stock prices to get bigger bonuses.

[willx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

@Solace, I pretty much agree with the video. On the point of money, I think beyond a certain point (likely somewhere between 50k-100k), more income indeed doesn't serve as much of a motivator.

I vehemently disagree..

I think this quote sums it up the best:

Equity Private: Man is basically lazy. Innovative and complex incentive and disincentive structures must be continually created and refined to compel any desirable behavior (including the absence self-destructive behavior). Excessive gaming of the system will be employed at every opportunity to avoid doing anything resembling work.

My friend is an entrepreneur that started a business. He pays his employees reasonably well (in the bracket you described above, and more for "specialists") but frankly? He finds the average worker relatively incompetent, lazy and unmotivated. We're also not talking about assembly line folks, we're talking IT folks, Engineers, In-house Lawyers, Sales Mangers, etc. He has still managed to become exceedingly wealthy.

That said, there are people that are hungry and ambitious and thirst for more money, more prestige, more work and more success. You don't want to put them in with these other workers to dull their spirit and their drive. These people you want to give them free reign and you trust them with that responsibility. That trust and responsibility is earned. You also compensate them accordingly. If you don't? They'll leave. They'll go somewhere else. They'll probably be fine. Everyone is usually chasing these same people.

Let's all agree right here and right now: Not all men (and women) are created equal. Nor are their motivations all the same. To assume either or both is far too presumptuous.

Some people would be happy with a 9-5 job, a small family and infrequent vacations. Some people never want kids and want to live more lavishly. Many people want to work like the former, have their kids and live like the latter.

On Pay:

The most typical problem of unjust pay as you call it is due to the imperfect supply & demand nature of the labour market. Why should some people make so much money? Bankers? Lawyers? Athletes? Doctors? PhDs? Management? Executives? For sure there are some amounts of corruption and inefficiencies (crony capitalism) going on, but simplistically certain professions are also more in demand. Skills have become more specialized and persons with certain types of talents, skills, experience or personalities are more sought after. Also for unskilled or lesser skilled workers, there is generally no shortage of people willing to replace those that want more pay right now. Labour gets paid more when there's a shortage and when the workforce is highly mobile. You can see it historically, when the economy was rapidly expanding in the U.S. and there was a worker shortage (and the working age population was younger and not tied down geographically with families), labour had a much stronger say on pay packages and benefits.

The above is obviously not the case now. The economy isn't great. There was too much leverage in the system, both at the government and consumer level. The entire country has been living beyond it's means. Don't forget also that during recessions, the wealthiest lose the most[1] .. but obviously are better able to deal with it because of their vast assets. Just don't forget shareholder/owner/entrepreneur risk is real.. Remember, ~50% of new businesses fail within 5 years. Even fewer make it out to 10 years[2]

[1] CBO: "The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2008 and 2009"
[2] From the Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics

Reply hazy, ask again later

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by willx

Equity Private: Man is basically lazy. Innovative and complex incentive and disincentive structures must be continually created and refined to compel any desirable behavior (including the absence self-destructive behavior). Excessive gaming of the system will be employed at every opportunity to avoid doing anything resembling work.

People are fundamentally lazy, in that they don't do work for no purpose. If anything, I see this as a good thing. If a businessman is finding his workers to be lazy, I think it more because the businessman has failed to produce the factors necessary to inspire work ethic in their employees. I think, in the proper conditions, every worker can do outstanding work (at least in accordance to their abilities). But people aren't animals, to engage them, you need to speak to the soul. They need to be engaged in some kind of greater mission, and to the chagrin of most entrepreneurs out there, the sort of motivating missions doesn't extend to "make my boss loads of money". A boss whose solely motivated by money will communicate that to his subordinates, and those subordinates will not perform to their best abilities.

My friend is an entrepreneur that started a business. He pays his employees reasonably well (in the bracket you described above, and more for "specialists") but frankly? He finds the average worker relatively incompetent, lazy and unmotivated. We're also not talking about assembly line folks, we're talking IT folks, Engineers, In-house Lawyers, Sales Mangers, etc. He has still managed to become exceedingly wealthy.

If they're unmotivated, it's as much his own fault as his employees. He needs to give them reasons for their work.

Money alone does not motivate. People's attitude to money is more in the negative sense. IE it's hard to concentrate on other things when you're worried about feeding yourself or your children. People will work hard to reach subsistence levels of income, but after that money doesn't do much. At that point most people will at best be motivated by "what can this money buy me", and ultimately they will weigh up the superficial pleasures money will buy in the future, with the immediate gratification of shirking work. Furthermore, it's not certain if their harder work will even result in a pay increase. You only can get a pay increase for what your boss sees, after all. So most people will choose the immediate gratification of less work, over the hypothetical (and distant) possibility of more pay.

People, however, are not logical beings. For one thing, many of the things that people find gratifying can not be bought with money. If people love their work, are loyal to their superiors, and find their companies mission appealing, they will continue to work there even if a competitor offers them double or triple their existing pay (unless they live in poverty, of course).

That said, there are people that are hungry and ambitious and thirst for more money, more prestige, more work and more success. You don't want to put them in with these other workers to dull their spirit and their drive. These people you want to give them free reign and you trust them with that responsibility. That trust and responsibility is earned. You also compensate them accordingly. If you don't? They'll leave. They'll go somewhere else. They'll probably be fine. Everyone is usually chasing these same people.

Such people are not so desirable as you make them out to be. If they are purely working out of personal ambition and greed, they will always sell themselves to the highest bidder, and they'll focus on the appearance of greatness, rather then the substance of greatness(so as to maximise wealth and prestige). They lack loyalty. Mercenaries are competent, yes, but they lack any integrity.

Let's all agree right here and right now: Not all men (and women) are created equal. Nor are their motivations all the same. To assume either or both is far too presumptuous.

I can agree on that. But I think 95% of the population is capable of making a net contribution to the organization in which they operate. The exception are psychopaths and other sociopathic types.

The most typical problem of unjust pay as you call it is due to the imperfect supply & demand nature of the labour market. Why should some people make so much money? Bankers? Lawyers? Athletes? Doctors? PhDs? Management? Executives? For sure there are some amounts of corruption and inefficiencies (crony capitalism) going on, but simplistically certain professions are also more in demand. Skills have become more specialized and persons with certain types of talents, skills, experience or personalities are more sought after. Also for unskilled or lesser skilled workers, there is generally no shortage of people willing to replace those that want more pay right now. Labour gets paid more when there's a shortage and when the workforce is highly mobile. You can see it historically, when the economy was rapidly expanding in the U.S. and there was a worker shortage (and the working age population was younger and not tied down geographically with families), labour had a much stronger say on pay packages and benefits.

This is true, but the average worker is also capable of contributing a lot more then people realise. If you want to see the difference proper management can make, consider the case of NUMMI. For instance, I'm an engineering grad, and there are many positions on offer I could do without too much training, but companies don't hire grads like me because they could just train me up and then some other company could come along and bribe me to leave...

Personally, I feel that certain professions are overpaid today. Particularly senior management. From what I can see, most of them are more loyal to their own paycheck then they are to the company (and employees) they're "managing". A lot of these people are just engaging in rent seeking behavior.

[willx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I can agree on that. But I think 95% of the population is capable of making a net contribution to the organization in which they operate. The exception are psychopaths and other sociopathic types.

-Snip-

This is true, but the average worker is also capable of contributing a lot more then people realise. If you want to see the difference proper management can make, consider the case of NUMMI. For instance, I'm an engineering grad, and there are many positions on offer I could do without too much training, but companies don't hire grads like me because they could just train me up and then some other company could come along and bribe me to leave...

Yeah, going to have to disagree with you. This is not because I think certain jobs are hard or that most people are incapable. There's a nuance here.

As a person that has started at a job where you learn pretty much everything "on site" and have risen to a level where I monitor and supervise new staff .. I'd like to make this clear:

Not necessarily a matter of intelligence: Most jobs require tasks that do not require significant intellect or talent to do. Rocket science obviously requires specialized knowledge, but most jobs aren't rocket science. So let's presume the average person can balance their budget and do their taxes (ha, balance their budget). They are obviously capable of reasoning out most problems they need to do for a wide range of jobs. But..

But it is an issue of trust, responsibility and work ethic: The issue is work ethic and responsibility. You or any other person could with significant preparation likely organize a sales team product launch or sit down and do a sales negotiation. The issue is that you must do the preparatory work. You must be able to continually produce these results day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Discipline. You cannot accept or allow any screw-ups (even though some are inevitable, when they occur they are deemed unacceptable, immediately rectified, and routines are established so they don't happen again.) So not only do you have to be able to prove you can do it, you have to be able to prove you can do it consistently .. and then have someone trust that you aren't going to "drop the ball" that one single day that makes all your previous hard work meaningless.

I work with many people that are driven. When a mistake is made, they are harder on themselves than their superiors, their clients or anyone else could possibly be on them. They beat themselves up and then re-build their confidence from the ground up. These are the people that are "worth it." When it comes to work, if that's not how you are, then I have no time for you. This is the exception and not the rule though when it comes to people that I know. I'll tell you now that neither the majority of my friends or family display such qualities.

And that is simply Discipline. Capital D, Discipline. Let's not fool ourselves and move away from work as a topic, we can see this in a broad range of other areas. People can't stick to their diet plans or their New Year's resolutions. People cheat on their spouses or have failing familial relationships. People are irresponsible in their own lives and blame their personal failures on others, the world and the circumstances. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with those "sought after" employees as well, it does, but you do the best you can to find the best people you can. Most people will utterly fail to meet this criteria.

PS: I disagree with your idea of money. You have to pay the right people the right amount of money. Not purely for money, but for the lifestyle they expect to achieve doing what they're doing .. if that means they get rid of more "Life Friction" (dry cleaning, food, babysitters, personal drivers) so they can focus even more on work then all the better.

Reply hazy, ask again later

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

But it is an issue of trust, responsibility and work ethic: The issue is work ethic and responsibility. You or any other person could with significant preparation likely organize a sales team product launch or sit down and do a sales negotiation. The issue is that you must do the preparatory work. You must be able to continually produce these results day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Discipline. You cannot accept or allow any screw-ups (even though some are inevitable, when they occur they are deemed unacceptable, immediately rectified, and routines are established so they don't happen again.) So not only do you have to be able to prove you can do it, you have to be able to prove you can do it consistently .. and then have someone trust that you aren't going to "drop the ball" that one single day that makes all your previous hard work meaningless.

I work with many people that are driven. When a mistake is made, they are harder on themselves than their superiors, their clients or anyone else could possibly be on them. They beat themselves up and then re-build their confidence from the ground up. These are the people that are "worth it." When it comes to work, if that's not how you are, then I have no time for you. This is the exception and not the rule though when it comes to people that I know. I'll tell you now that neither the majority of my friends or family display such qualities.

And that is simply Discipline. Capital D, Discipline. Let's not fool ourselves and move away from work as a topic, we can see this in a broad range of other areas. People can't stick to their diet plans or their New Year's resolutions. People cheat on their spouses or have failing familial relationships. People are irresponsible in their own lives and blame their personal failures on others, the world and the circumstances. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with those "sought after" employees as well, it does, but you do the best you can to find the best people you can. Most people will utterly fail to meet this criteria.

I agree with most of what you say, except that discipline is worth NOTHING when the work fails to go through. The words "go fly your own kite" has passed my lips many many times to some IDIOTS who don't get it that doing the same thing over and over the again is a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME AND ENERGY. If that is discipline, then the term is another 21st century corporate cliche.

Even moreso when these people are the cockblocking superiors. If it doesn't work, take a step back and stop f*cking around with that same methods and people. RE-TASK and RE-EXECUTE. "Discipline" is an excuse used by dictators to enforce their rule and power, but self-discipline isn't; it is a way of fighting for your beliefs by sticking to OBJECTIVES, not the PLAN.

One last thing - trust no one. Always have a contingency where you have to do everything yourself, I learn this the hard way in school projects and I don't want to see an over-reliance on "teamwork" and "cooperation" in my work life.

Thank goodness for contingencies that I survive more things than I could get me fired.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by willx

Yeah, going to have to disagree with you.

Actually, I don't think you two's main points are contradictory enough to be called disagreement.

DonQ's talking about something like, for example, teachers trying to make their subject more interesting to appeal to their students. Research has been done, and it takes rare, exceptional teachers to have lasting significant effect even if they try.

And there are always students who work hard and get good grade whether they are interested or not, due to work ethics or parent pressure(reward), which is what you are talking about.

Correct me if i misunderstood you.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by willx

Not necessarily a matter of intelligence: Most jobs require tasks that do not require significant intellect or talent to do. Rocket science obviously requires specialized knowledge, but most jobs aren't rocket science. So let's presume the average person can balance their budget and do their taxes (ha, balance their budget). They are obviously capable of reasoning out most problems they need to do for a wide range of jobs. But..

But it is an issue of trust, responsibility and work ethic: The issue is work ethic and responsibility. You or any other person could with significant preparation likely organize a sales team product launch or sit down and do a sales negotiation. The issue is that you must do the preparatory work. You must be able to continually produce these results day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Discipline. You cannot accept or allow any screw-ups (even though some are inevitable, when they occur they are deemed unacceptable, immediately rectified, and routines are established so they don't happen again.) So not only do you have to be able to prove you can do it, you have to be able to prove you can do it consistently .. and then have someone trust that you aren't going to "drop the ball" that one single day that makes all your previous hard work meaningless.

Basically. The employees need to care. If the employees care about what they're doing, they'll work with the discipline you describe. If they don't, they'll be sloppy. People are not gluttons for punishment, they don't do hard work without a good reason. The question for the manager is a simple one, how do I make my employees care. The root cause of laziness and sloppiness is apathy.

You're right on trust though. People don't work hard for people they don't trust.

I work with many people that are driven. When a mistake is made, they are harder on themselves than their superiors, their clients or anyone else could possibly be on them. They beat themselves up and then re-build their confidence from the ground up. These are the people that are "worth it." When it comes to work, if that's not how you are, then I have no time for you. This is the exception and not the rule though when it comes to people that I know. I'll tell you now that neither the majority of my friends or family display such qualities.

This sort of behaviour is highly circumstantial. For instance, I don't give a damn about how neat my living space is, so consequently when it comes to doing cleaning, I will do my best to do as little of it as possible. I just don't care enough to make the effort. On the flipside, if I make a promise to someone that I'll do something, I always do it to the best of my ability. I care about upholding my word. In university I was pretty lazy, while working for the student newspaper, I was a model reporter. Same person, different environment, different behavior. My performance in both was related to my value judgements of both.

If a worker is shirking, you've simply failed to push the buttons they've got. Everyone has different motives, and most are not material. Once a person has achieved "the good life" which is relatively easy in our society, you need to look at the other things that make people tick.

And that is simply Discipline. Capital D, Discipline. Let's not fool ourselves and move away from work as a topic, we can see this in a broad range of other areas. People can't stick to their diet plans or their New Year's resolutions. People cheat on their spouses or have failing familial relationships. People are irresponsible in their own lives and blame their personal failures on others, the world and the circumstances. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with those "sought after" employees as well, it does, but you do the best you can to find the best people you can. Most people will utterly fail to meet this criteria.

People don't stick to their diet plans because they only superficially care about losing weight. They care a lot more about eating delicious food. People cheat on their spouses because they no longer love them, and no longer care about their feelings. Most of these failings of indiscipline are due to apathy. The "amount that people can care" is a limited thing. They will always prioritize the thing they care about most. The people who you refer to as being "disciplined" are not necessarily more disciplined then anyone else. They just care more about work then they do about other things. Other people don't so much about their work because their work hasn't given them a convincing argument.

PS: I disagree with your idea of money. You have to pay the right people the right amount of money. Not purely for money, but for the lifestyle they expect to achieve doing what they're doing .. if that means they get rid of more "Life Friction" (dry cleaning, food, babysitters, personal drivers) so they can focus even more on work then all the better.

I have a simple question for you, why do these people work so hard? What drives them to do such good work?

EDIT:@SaintessHeart: While in personal life it's good to be self reliant, in the world of work you can't achieve anything really substantial without depending on other people. It's unfortunate, but it can't be escaped.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If they're unmotivated, it's as much his own fault as his employees.

People make bad decisions all the time. That includes what jobs they'll take.

It's not necessarily anyone's fault. How could anyone know before giving it a try?

The question is what to do about it. I don't think it's systematically the responsibility of the employer to take the employee by the hand and motivate him. In lots of circumstances, there are plenty of potential employees who can motivate themselves. Why not give them a chance?

As well as give a chance for the bad employee to find what he's really made for. Hopefully it's in more demand than bon mots and casual sodomy.

He needs to give them reasons for their work.

Or to find another employee.

I can agree on that. But I think 95% of the population is capable of making a net contribution to the organization in which they operate. The exception are psychopaths and other sociopathic types.

*shrug* There is a really wide array of jobs where I wouldn't make a net contribution. I just don't have it in me. Or, even if I could, there are just too many people who'd do a better job.

Personally, I feel that certain professions are overpaid today. Particularly senior management.

Well, the problem is, they have a bit too much direct say in their own salary.

Originally Posted by willx

Yeah, going to have to disagree with you. This is not because I think certain jobs are hard or that most people are incapable. There's a nuance here.

As a person that has started at a job where you learn pretty much everything "on site" and have risen to a level where I monitor and supervise new staff .. I'd like to make this clear:

Not necessarily a matter of intelligence: Most jobs require tasks that do not require significant intellect or talent to do. Rocket science obviously requires specialized knowledge, but most jobs aren't rocket science. So let's presume the average person can balance their budget and do their taxes (ha, balance their budget). They are obviously capable of reasoning out most problems they need to do for a wide range of jobs. But..

But it is an issue of trust, responsibility and work ethic: The issue is work ethic and responsibility. You or any other person could with significant preparation likely organize a sales team product launch or sit down and do a sales negotiation. The issue is that you must do the preparatory work. You must be able to continually produce these results day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year. Discipline. You cannot accept or allow any screw-ups (even though some are inevitable, when they occur they are deemed unacceptable, immediately rectified, and routines are established so they don't happen again.) So not only do you have to be able to prove you can do it, you have to be able to prove you can do it consistently .. and then have someone trust that you aren't going to "drop the ball" that one single day that makes all your previous hard work meaningless.

I work with many people that are driven. When a mistake is made, they are harder on themselves than their superiors, their clients or anyone else could possibly be on them. They beat themselves up and then re-build their confidence from the ground up. These are the people that are "worth it." When it comes to work, if that's not how you are, then I have no time for you. This is the exception and not the rule though when it comes to people that I know. I'll tell you now that neither the majority of my friends or family display such qualities.

And that is simply Discipline. Capital D, Discipline. Let's not fool ourselves and move away from work as a topic, we can see this in a broad range of other areas. People can't stick to their diet plans or their New Year's resolutions. People cheat on their spouses or have failing familial relationships. People are irresponsible in their own lives and blame their personal failures on others, the world and the circumstances. I'm not saying this doesn't happen with those "sought after" employees as well, it does, but you do the best you can to find the best people you can. Most people will utterly fail to meet this criteria.

I largely agree, but I think people can be motivated (and disciplined) for different things. For example, someone could be highly disciplined in his work, and be a mess in his personal life. Or, even more specifically, he could be driven when given certain tasks, but drag his feet at others.

PS: I disagree with your idea of money. You have to pay the right people the right amount of money. Not purely for money, but for the lifestyle they expect to achieve doing what they're doing .. if that means they get rid of more "Life Friction" (dry cleaning, food, babysitters, personal drivers) so they can focus even more on work then all the better.

That, and to show you value them. Telling them is all well and good, but money has a weight that words don't. Even if they have little use for the money as legal tender, it's still a means of keeping score. Of knowing someone out there is willing to pay X amount for their services.

[willx]

Originally Posted by maplehurry

Actually, I don't think you two's main points are contradictory enough to be called disagreement.

DonQ's talking about something like, for example, teachers trying to make their subject more interesting to appeal to their students. Research has been done, and it takes rare, exceptional teachers to have lasting significant effect even if they try.

And there are always students who work hard and get good grade whether they are interested or not, due to work ethics or parent pressure(reward), which is what you are talking about.

Correct me if i misunderstood you.

I disagree with his point that 95% of employees in the typical company can under different circumstances contribute much more significantly. I also disagree that money isn't a good incentive. It can't be the only incentive, but it can be a pretty damn big one, and it's not just about the money .. it's about what money can do for you. Anyone that thinks it can't do much is naive or lacks imagination..

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Basically. The employees need to care. If the employees care about what they're doing, they'll work with the discipline you describe. If they don't, they'll be sloppy. People are not gluttons for punishment, they don't do hard work without a good reason. The question for the manager is a simple one, how do I make my employees care. The root cause of laziness and sloppiness is apathy.

You're right on trust though. People don't work hard for people they don't trust.

-Snip-

The people who you refer to as being "disciplined" are not necessarily more disciplined then anyone else. They just care more about work then they do about other things. Other people don't so much about their work because their work hasn't given them a convincing argument.
I have a simple question for you, why do these people work so hard? What drives them to do such good work?

Yeah, but you and me disagree on the root cause of laziness. You call it apathy and lack of employee involvement .. I call .. human nature

As for trust, yeah, I agree .. I wouldn't work hard for my boss unless he trusted me. I also wouldn't have had the opportunity to take on more responsibility unless I was in turn trusted. One of those is more important, maybe we differ on which one we think is so?

I agree with you and Anh Minh on this point, I am personally undisciplined and sloppy in certain aspects of my life I deem unimportant, but I was using this as an example. I'm also talking about major portions .. important portions of a great many people's lives that they are not careful about and disciplined about. We're talking their household budgets. Their entire lives and fortunes. Their own personal development. We're talking about evidence of major personal failure and personality failings. Perhaps I was raised a certain way because of my upbringing and I still have a chip on my shoulder from my childhood. A strong work ethic is incredibly important to me. Being smarter, better and stronger is incredibly important.

As for my work place? I work in Investment Banking. I'd say Money (30%), Promotions / Future Money (50%) and Prestige (20%) are why people work as hard as they do here. These are all people that are incredibly driven and work for / expect a certain life and lifestyle. They all work ~70-110 hours a week when it's busy. It's been slow recently, but everyone here is prepared to do so with no second thoughts.

Reply hazy, ask again later

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I have a simple question for you, why do these people work so hard? What drives them to do such good work?

One word. Passion.

I have got pretty good testimonials in the school ensemble, got plenty of affirmative responses back when I was working in a Japanese restaurant, an engineering firm and warehouse, but as of the recent couple of jobs, I get alot of scoldings and arguments with my superiors (my older colleagues would occassionally get me to calm down afterwards) over getting work done.

There isn't anything wrong with "attitude". The real problem lies with the desire to get the job done well. And what would drive people to do that? Most of the time I observed, they simply liked it.

EDIT:@SaintessHeart: While in personal life it's good to be self reliant, in the world of work you can't achieve anything really substantial without depending on other people. It's unfortunate, but it can't be escaped.

At times, yes. That point is moot at my job right now because I actually did more work today than usual because my partner was reallocated to do something else.

Statistically, twice as much. I have heard from a career talk that there are some people who work better independently than in teams, maybe I am one of those?

Now if only we can get those HR magazines to stop encouraging teamwork all the time and forcing the more independent to "share the workload". No thank you bitch, I love my work so much that I am willing to work free labour OT doing it. Now stop stealing my work.

Originally Posted by willx

It's been slow recently, but everyone here is prepared to do so with no second thoughts.

Speaking of which, I had quite some talk with a number of people while waiting for stock today. As we spoke, the logistics side people quipped that their turnover rate has dropped significantly during the past few months, and the warehouse is clogged with readied stuff that has not yet been shipped out since the last 2 months. The sales had told us that they spend more time sitting around than actually doing something.

Despite the size of the company, if this comes to pass at the central conduit of all physical transactions, there must be something wrong, either the company, or the economy. I put $20 on the economy; shit is going to hit the fan next month.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Disagree. Profit is simply quality in another sphere, namely the production process. You can have a high quality process for producing cheap goods. To obtain such a high quality process you need the active involvement of every level of the workforce, and engage them in actively looking for ways to make the process more efficient. An unthinking unengaged workforce (even if they're manual workers), will in the long run lead to a worse, less efficient, more expensive(compared to competitors) operation. This is a basic principle of modern lean manufacturing.

Cutting corners indiscriminately, in the long run, rarely saves money. For instance, you might save a lot of money now by eliminating regular maintenance, but when a machine tool completely breaks down injuring several employees (who promptly sue the company for damages), all the while you need to also replace the machine. Suffice to say, no money was saved. That said, there's nothing wrong with calculated cost saving measures. For instance you could identify that a particular machine only needs half as much maintenance as it currently receives.

Corner cutting is a form of "short termism", and is perhaps a problem particularly visible in most corporate governance. Too many companies only focus on the next quarter, looking for quick easy fixes, while real success has to be built up over years. Again, I think a worker owned cooperative is more likely to focus on building for long term success then a conventional company. They don't have to up stock prices to get bigger bonuses.

I agree with everything you said, but there's diminishing returns at a certain level (which I do recall being an aspect of my uber-boring operations management course in college, most of which I've by now forgotten unfortunately), which is to what I was referring. A highly motivated worker cooperative might have the highest quality in everything (production as well as their product/service), but not be as profitable because they're 'overdoing it'. There's an equilibrium at some level, and I don't doubt that it errs on the side of employee satisfaction, but I think there's a balance.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The question is what to do about it. I don't think it's systematically the responsibility of the employer to take the employee by the hand and motivate him. In lots of circumstances, there are plenty of potential employees who can motivate themselves. Why not give them a chance?

I was speaking in the more general case, rather then the specific case. There are businesses whee the vast majority of the work force is unengaged and poor. In such cases I think it's likely the deficiency of the workers can really be blamed on the management, for crafting an organisation the workers feel no loyalty to.

Or to find another employee.

And the next employee will be just as bad as the previous one. People work for a reason. If no good reason is given to the next guy to work hard, why should he bother? You'll just cycle through people until you get some stupid busybody who likes working for no good reason, and derails things into pointlessness.

*shrug* There is a really wide array of jobs where I wouldn't make a net contribution. I just don't have it in me. Or, even if I could, there are just too many people who'd do a better job.

I said organization, not job. You may have little aptitude for accounting, but you might do well when moved to the organization's marketing department.

Well, the problem is, they have a bit too much direct say in their own salary.

Very likely. One benefit of worker cooperatives is that workers set overall salary possible, so senior management don't tend to be so absurdly overpaid.

I largely agree, but I think people can be motivated (and disciplined) for different things. For example, someone could be highly disciplined in his work, and be a mess in his personal life. Or, even more specifically, he could be driven when given certain tasks, but drag his feet at others.

This was my point. The more interesting question, I think, is to look at why people work more on some things then on others.

That, and to show you value them. Telling them is all well and good, but money has a weight that words don't. Even if they have little use for the money as legal tender, it's still a means of keeping score. Of knowing someone out there is willing to pay X amount for their services.

I think it's important to pay employees more, but more out of fairness. Employees won't be happy if their hard work results in record dividends for shareholders while they have nothing to show for it. You need proportional pay so that employees don't feel they're being "exploited". If they're being "exploited", they won't trust the company, and you don't work hard for someone you don't trust.

Originally Posted by willx

I disagree with his point that 95% of employees in the typical company can under different circumstances contribute much more significantly.

It depends on how well the company is being run. Toyota at it's peak was extracting the most it could from it's employees(from the lowest to the highest). At the same time, GM far underutilized the talents of it's employees. End result was that GM went bankrupt, and Toyota became the world's most successful car manufacturer. Toyota isn't as good as it used to be, though it's notable that Toyota has treated it's employees well enough that they don't feel the need to unionize.

If I hate my boss, I'm going to my best to do as little as possible (and I might even try sabotaging him if I can). If I love my boss, I'll actively search for new ways to improve the organisation in what little way I can. I don't work just for the sake of working (though I am a believer in doing a good job, I'm not going to bother if no one cares, or I receive no kudos, or if I'm treated like a dog).

I also disagree that money isn't a good incentive. It can't be the only incentive, but it can be a pretty damn big one, and it's not just about the money .. it's about what money can do for you. Anyone that thinks it can't do much is naive or lacks imagination..

It depends on your personality, I suppose. There are few things that I desire that money can buy. Once I have a good dwelling, food to feed my family and myself well, and access to all the basic amenities, and enough excess cash to engage in certain modest entertainments, there is little more money can provide me. At that point I'd be more concerned with stroking my ego by putting my time into doing something that achieves something "great". I become more concerned with the nature of my work, rather then how I profit from it. Others will be different.

I don't think money really makes you happy (though the lack of it makes you deeply unhappy). From what I've heard, very few lottery winners are particularly happy with their cash.

Yeah, but you and me disagree on the root cause of laziness. You call it apathy and lack of employee involvement .. I call .. human nature

It's Human nature to only work on what's important to you. It's not human nature to avoid working at all. People will always find things to "work" on, it just might be art and music rather then hard work at the factory.

As for trust, yeah, I agree .. I wouldn't work hard for my boss unless he trusted me. I also wouldn't have had the opportunity to take on more responsibility unless I was in turn trusted. One of those is more important, maybe we differ on which one we think is so?

It's a reciprocal thing. How can I trust someone who doesn't trust me? However, given that the manager has the authority, I think it really starts with him. Most people trust their superiors by default, but superiors act in a way to cause that trust to be lost.

I agree with you and Anh Minh on this point, I am personally undisciplined and sloppy in certain aspects of my life I deem unimportant, but I was using this as an example. I'm also talking about major portions .. important portions of a great many people's lives that they are not careful about and disciplined about. We're talking their household budgets. Their entire lives and fortunes. Their own personal development. We're talking about evidence of major personal failure and personality failings. Perhaps I was raised a certain way because of my upbringing and I still have a chip on my shoulder from my childhood. A strong work ethic is incredibly important to me. Being smarter, better and stronger is incredibly important.

Some people do fail in their lives. You shouldn't be too quick to judge though. You can't know a person enough to really judge them, and a lot of people have shitty luck.

As for my work place? I work in Investment Banking. I'd say Money (30%), Promotions / Future Money (50%) and Prestige (20%) are why people work as hard as they do here. These are all people that are incredibly driven and work for / expect a certain life and lifestyle. They all work ~70-110 hours a week when it's busy. It's been slow recently, but everyone here is prepared to do so with no second thoughts.

But what will that money get them? What will that prestige get them? What are they actually achieving, materially?

I am quite concerned about money right now, because I deeply fear poverty, and I feel a responsibility to my family to prevent them falling into poverty. Beyond that money is meaningless pieces of paper. I'd be much more satisfied with some kind of achievement then a 8 figure sum next to my name(so long as I'm not poor).

And further more, if all they're working for is money and prestige, how do you trust them? What's to stop them from jumping ship the minute someone else offers a larger sum? What's to stop one of them betraying the whole for a fat check?

I think that if you look at your coworkers, you'll find more complicated motives at play, like: Duty to your friends/coworkers, respect for the company, desire to work hard (for it's own sake), finding the work inherently enjoyable, feeling the company is achieving something and wanting to join in that... I would say the factors you described only make up ~30% of a more complicated "motivation picture".

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

One word. Passion.

Passion is the opposite of apathy. The question is why do they feel passionate?

Most of the time I observed, they simply liked it.

One quite likely reason.

Statistically, twice as much. I have heard from a career talk that there are some people who work better independently than in teams, maybe I am one of those?

Some people do work better alone. There is nothing wrong with this, as some tasks are better done alone. Diversity is strength.

Now if only we can get those HR magazines to stop encouraging teamwork all the time and forcing the more independent to "share the workload". No thank you bitch, I love my work so much that I am willing to work free labour OT doing it. Now stop stealing my work.

On the flipside, you shouldn't pass up opportunities to learn from other people, and in turn allow them to learn from you.

Despite the size of the company, if this comes to pass at the central conduit of all physical transactions, there must be something wrong, either the company, or the economy. I put $20 on the economy; shit is going to hit the fan next month.

Probably the economy.

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

I agree with everything you said, but there's diminishing returns at a certain level (which I do recall being an aspect of my uber-boring operations management course in college, most of which I've by now forgotten unfortunately), which is to what I was referring. A highly motivated worker cooperative might have the highest quality in everything (production as well as their product/service), but not be as profitable because they're 'overdoing it'. There's an equilibrium at some level, and I don't doubt that it errs on the side of employee satisfaction, but I think there's a balance.

Over-engineering is an issue, but coops are managed just as normal companies are. In this case it's an issue of poor allocation. That said, I don't think it's realistically possible for a process to exist that can't be improved upon. There is always room for improvement.

[willx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I don't think money really makes you happy (though the lack of it makes you deeply unhappy). From what I've heard, very few lottery winners are particularly happy with their cash.

Yeah, tons of money can actually make you unhappy, which is what happened to those lottery winners. Many of them simply couldn't adjust and their lives and personal relationships broke down. That happens due to any sort of "sudden windfall" -- we're discussing something different though. We're not talking about "Lottery Winner Syndrome"

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's Human nature to only work on what's important to you. It's not human nature to avoid working at all.

Yeah, as I said, I disagree. I actually think for a good many people it is in fact human nature to avoid working at all.. It's easy to say it's human nature to work on what's important to you .. but from what I've seen, for many people, it is not work that is important -- their priorities lie in other directions .. directions that money can affect

That said, there are a great many people that are happy with their lives, while being simultaneously unhappy with their jobs. That happens -- I'm not sure most people take pleasure out of their work being a janitor or custodian or any of a plethora of menial or repetitive jobs. These people find satisfaction in other parts of their lives .. which is perfectly fine as well. That's why they do those jobs that they do. That's okay! They work their jobs just to make the money that they do .. and then they go and get enjoyment, stress relief and numerous other things out of some other factor of their life, be it family, friends, travel, etc.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Some people do fail in their lives. You shouldn't be too quick to judge though. You can't know a person enough to really judge them, and a lot of people have shitty luck.

I've interviewed people lately (and I too am such a person) who has failed before in their lives or had a "low point" that they fell to. The difference is that I myself and these other potential employees I interviewed have all "recovered." They display traits and experiences -- that prove they have moved past those points in life. I judge people by their present circumstances, not their past, people that don't seek to do everything in their power to change their circumstances aren't worth the effort. My point above is simply stating that people in general are inconsistent and it is much harder to trust them and for them to earn trust than you make it out to be.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But what will that money get them? What will that prestige get them? What are they actually achieving, materially?

-Snip-

I think that if you look at your coworkers, you'll find more complicated motives at play, like: Duty to your friends/coworkers, respect for the company, desire to work hard (for it's own sake), finding the work inherently enjoyable, feeling the company is achieving something and wanting to join in that... I would say the factors you described only make up ~30% of a more complicated "motivation picture".

This is again where we simply see differences in human nature .. you ask what money will get them and what prestige will get them. You simply don't agree and accept that what money is capable of doing for a person and the confidence and pleasant feelings of prestigious work can provide as being acceptable motives.

Money can provide so many things. Private jets, luxurious vacations, beautiful (wo)men as partners and such aside, it simply has the ability to provide security, comfort and confidence to you and your family. By possessing it you create opportunities for your offspring to see the world, make connections and shelter them from harm. If that wasn't enough .. with enough money you can start trying to change the world .. fund research, charities, foundations -- "passion projects" as it were become within reach. Money, properly utilized, brings respect, power, security and many other "esteem needs" or things that perhaps you deem to be acceptable motives.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that money is an "end" in and of itself. I am saying that money is a means to a great many "ends" -- as it should be. Money was created as a medium of exchange. You don't work directly to harvest food. You don't work directly to tutor your children. You don't work directly to build a home. You get all these things from money. Why is it a surprise then that money is something directly sought after when it can be exchanged for so many things?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by willx

Yeah, as I said, I disagree. I actually think for a good many people it is in fact human nature to avoid working at all.. It's easy to say it's human nature to work on what's important to you .. but from what I've seen, for many people, it is not work that is important -- their priorities lie in other directions .. directions that money can affect

Depends how you define "work". If it's performed for pay in an office building somewhere, you're quite right.

But personally, I think raising children, keeping house, painting, cooking etc. are just as much "work" as tabulating numbers in an office somewhere. People enjoy exertion. Without exertion of some kind, people just feel bored. Even playing a computer game is, in a sense, work. A computer game provides a circumstance that motivates most people to do actions requiring skill and exertion. People are not by default lazy. Left idle, their default is not to sit around and stare into space. Even the people staring into space are probably intensely thinking about something. People will always work if the idea of working feels appealing to them.

Now, when people put too much effort into activities that don't further their material situation, and too little into what is more typically called "work", this is a bad thing. But they are not "lazy". It's just the other activities seem far more appealing and gratifying then the "work". They're probably just in the wrong profession.

That said, there are a great many people that are happy with their lives, while being simultaneously unhappy with their jobs. That happens -- I'm not sure most people take pleasure out of their work being a janitor or custodian or any of a plethora of menial or repetitive jobs. These people find satisfaction in other parts of their lives .. which is perfectly fine as well.

Do you think it's not possible to derive satisfaction from working as a janitor? That you can't derive some sense of pride from a job that pays little? Can't a janitor look upon a clean and pristine toilet he worked on, and think to himself "I did a good job?"

Cannot a burger flipper feel pride every time a person eats one of his burgers and says "This is delicious!"?

After all, if Janitors all disappeared tomorrow ,very quickly our buildings would be over-run with rats, filth and grime, and we'd all be infected with various diseases, life would be quite unlivable. If Management consultants or hedge fund managers suddenly disappeared, the world be a bit more inefficient, but it would go on.

And if there were no burger flippers, it would be a personal tragedy for me, as I'd be forced to replace my favorite lunch time snack with salad.

My point above is simply stating that people in general are inconsistent and it is much harder to trust them and for them to earn trust than you make it out to be.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. You assume a person can't perform, then they won't. If, on the other hand, you expect the best of them they'll often try their best to meet your expectations. In general my policy is to think the best of people until proven otherwise. As a policy it's been a good one (that's not to say you shouldn't be at all wary, though).

This is again where we simply see differences in human nature .. you ask what money will get them and what prestige will get them. You simply don't agree and accept that what money is capable of doing for a person and the confidence and pleasant feelings of prestigious work can provide as being acceptable motives.

I think they are destructive motives, because it is entirely the selfish interests of the individual, and recognizes no duties and responsibilities. It is vain, and people solely motivated by such things cannot be trusted. They abandon you the minute things go wrong. They're "fair weather" workers.

Money can provide so many things. Private jets, luxurious vacations, beautiful (wo)men as partners and such aside, it simply has the ability to provide security, comfort and confidence to you and your family. By possessing it you create opportunities for your offspring to see the world, make connections and shelter them from harm.

It's a question of quantity. As I said, after about 50-200k (depending on various factors, primarily the country you live in), you obtain all of that(except the private jet ). I had all of those things, and my father earned "only" 100k at the end of his career. More money then that has comparatively little to offer. It's just icing on the cake. Once you have the nice house, modcons, regular holidays, and your season ticket with the local theater, the benefits of more money become much less tangible. At that stage other things become much more important to many people like:
1. Shorter work hours (Time is just important a resource for advancing my ambitions as money)
2. Flexible work hours (Life doesn't operate on a 9-5 schedule, why should I?)
3. Better working conditions (I don't want to be crippled at 40)
4. More important work (I'd like to see my work actually achieving something)
5. Creation (I want to see ideas of mine come to fruition)

If that wasn't enough .. with enough money you can start trying to change the world .. fund research, charities, foundations -- "passion projects" as it were become within reach. Money, properly utilized, brings respect, power, security and many other "esteem needs" or things that perhaps you deem to be acceptable motives.

Certainly I have pet projects I'd like to have money to do. However, such things are distant and far in the future. When it comes to working hard right now (on this task I'd really prefer to do tomorrow ) I need something more powerful and immediate. I'm a lot more willing to do unpleasant work when I have a feeling they have immediate real benefits(and I don't mean "short term gratification").

Also, if you want to change the world, wouldn't it be better to be working in something that will lead to the world changing you believe in? Why slave 9-5 (or 9-11!) in a job where you achieve nothing of import (other then raking in cash) just for the off chance that you might be able to somehow change the world with the money you earned in the future. Or you might die tomorrow in a car crash, having not yet done a thing. I want to be achieving my goals now, and I want to be using the greater bulk of my time on those goals. I don't want my goals to be a thing I do in off hours, I want them to be the focus of my life, I want to spend all my time on it. But I can't, because I need to first concentrate on earning enough money so that I avoid poverty (as do most people).

A great many people are also lucky enough to find their life's purpose in their work. They become motivated by the work itself, and any extra money (above the level required to avoid poverty) is a nice bonus. They are the people you really want.

Keep in mind I'm not saying that money is an "end" in and of itself. I am saying that money is a means to a great many "ends" -- as it should be. Money was created as a medium of exchange. You don't work directly to harvest food. You don't work directly to tutor your children. You don't work directly to build a home. You get all these things from money. Why is it a surprise then that money is something directly sought after when it can be exchanged for so many things?

Money can only be exchanged for a limited number of things. You can buy a car, a house or a private jet. But you can't buy friends, family, companionship, virtue, work satisfaction, expression or wisdom.

Few of things I desire cost money, or significant amounts of money. Love, or a good book gives me (and many others) immeasurably more pleasure then a fancy car.

Now the question is this, just because I don't really care for money, does that make me a bad worker? If I was one of your employees (and I had the right skillset etc.) I would probably be able to contribute plenty to your operation. But at a certain point, you won't manage to motivate me more by providing me more money. You'd need to be a bit more imaginative. By focusing only on those motivated by money and prestige, you are losing:
1. Potentially good workers (if only you knew how to motivate them)
2. Integrity within the company, as the workers you do have are completely untrustworthy and selfish.(if they are solely motivated by money and prestige).

You say that most people are lazy, and I presume this is from your own work experience. But could this be simply because most people are not motivated by excessive amounts of money, and you are failing to provide the motivating factors necessary for them to feel like doing a good job? You are saying "work hard, I'll give you tons of money" and they are thinking "I don't give a shit about your money, the work is boring and pointless, this other guy is offering to pay me a lower but decent wage, and the work is cool!"

A workplace has to be pretty bad if they have to bribe people to stay there. There are many workplaces that people work at even though the pay is lower then elsewhere, for a variety of reasons.