Work incentive?

[Smoochy The Rhino]

So, I'm pretty sure that this has been asked before, but in short, what inventive would there be for workers? In the current system the mentality is basically "I must work hard so that I can be promoted and earn more money, and so on I'll be Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs!". But, under a Planned Economy (be it Socialism/Communism, State Capitalism, Mutualism, etc) this 'work hard to get ahead' mentality isn't there. I understand that an altruistic alternative of "I must work hard for the good of society" will set in, but in the mean time (maybe a generation or two) the majority of people will be operating under the old mentality.
Now the problem with this, is a criticism of Planned Economies that people seek the easiest way out. If they don't feel like their hard work will pay off for them (by becoming Steve Jobs), they feel like they have no incentive to do any work. And the same is true with inventors (didn't the inventor of the AK47 get bunk for his creation?).

So, how would a Planned Economy function between the old mentality and new mentality? What method of incentivation would be used?

[ComradeOm]

In the current system the mentality is basically "I must work hard so that I can be promoted and earn more money, and so on I'll be Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs!"Is it though? In capitalism the people who work hardest are invariably the worst paid, while those who earn the most contribute nothing to the production process. Compare a worker forced to take two menial jobs to make ends meet with a CEO who plays golf and attends the occasional meeting

[Sensible Socialist]

Regardless of the fact that, as ComradeOm mentioned, the hardest workers often make the lowest wages, after capitalism people will have access to jobs they actually enjoy. With an increased push to automate unwanted jobs, people will "work" because they enjoy it. As a secondary benefit, depending on the type of labor reward in place, those who complete the "worst" jobs will be rewarded more than someone with a very easy profession.

[Apoi_Viitor]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

[Smoochy The Rhino]

Is it though? In capitalism the people who work hardest are invariably the worst paid, while those who earn the most contribute nothing to the production process. Compare a worker forced to take two menial jobs to make ends meet with a CEO who plays golf and attends the occasional meeting

Pretend you were arguing against a Libertarian. Would they accept that as an argument? No. They would reply with something about how they know a whole load of capitalist upper management who work 80+ hours a day. To them, that argument is a load. I'm going for arguments that will give a Libertarian pause.


after capitalism people will have access to jobs they actually enjoy.

Again, to a Capitalist, this is a non-argument, since to them people already have a magical ability to go into possible career field.


With an increased push to automate unwanted jobs, people will "work" because they enjoy it.

I don't enjoy any work. I think the majority of people are like that. Will all work become automated? Once again, to a Capitalist, this is a non-argument since this will either A) happen under Capitalism anyways, or B) never happen anyways.


As a secondary benefit, depending on the type of labor reward in place, those who complete the "worst" jobs will be rewarded more than someone with a very easy profession.

Once more playing the Capitalist Devil's Advocate, wouldn't the worst jobs be the ones that require working the 80+ hours a day of the upper management (as mentioned above)?

As for the video, it basically makes the one point: the reward/punishment model doesn't work, internal motivation does.
So, the issue with reward/punishment is that if 'what science knows is not what business does', then there's also a mismatch between science knows and what.... science does. In Behavior Modification (a major subset within Psychology, which deals with, well, modifying behavior) the major thing used is operant conditioning, which is reward/punishment given a cool name.
The problem with intrinsic based systems is that you still have to get people out of the door to get to the factory, to work out the candle problem. If you don't have a system to get people out of the door, will they leave?

[robbo203]

On incentives in a communist volunteer economy of "freely asociated labour", several points:


# The amount of work that needs to be done by comparison with today will be significantly less because of the elimination of all the socially uselsss labour that only props up the capitalist money economy - from bankers to tax collectors. Less work means a much reduced per capita workload on average which, in turn, means less resistance to working since our attitutde to work is partly conditioned by how much time we are required to do it. If you only have to do 2 hours per week on a boring job you are going to regard it differently than if you have to do it for 20 hours

# A volunteer economy means that we are not stuck with just one job but can try a variety so there is a labour reservoir in depth for any particular job - even the most onerous or boring - and to an extent that is simply not possible under capitalist employment.

# With free acess to goods and services there is only one way in which you can acquire status and the respect and esteem of your fellows - through your contribution to society. Conspicuous consumption and the accumulation of private wealth would be rendered meaningless by the simple fact that all wealth is freely available for direct appropriation

# The terms and conditions of work will be radically different without the institution of capitalist employment. It is often these terms and conditions - in particular the authoritarian structure of the capitalist workplace - that are the real problem rather than the work itself

# Without the profit motive there will be far greater scope to adapt technology to suit our inclinations. Some work might be subject to greater automation; other work might be made more artisan or skilled-based

# In a communist society our mutual interdependence will be much more transparent and the sense of moral obligation to give according to one's ability in return for taking according to one's need will correspondingly be much more sharply defined and enhanced as a motivating factor

# A communist society cannot be introduced except when the great majority understand and want it. Having struggled to achieve it can it seriously be maintained that they would willingly allow it to be jeopardised? The reductio as absurdum argument

# Work. loosely defined as meaningful productive activity is actually a fundamental human need, not simply an economic requirement. Try sitting around on your bum for week doing nothing and you will soon find yourself climbing up the wall out of sheer boredom. Prison riots have been known to break out on occasions when frustrated prisoners are denied work opportunities and even under the severe conditions they have to contend with.

# Even under capitalism just over half of the work that we do is completely unpaid and outside of the money economy. This is by no means just confined to the household sector - think for example of international volunteers such as the VSO - and it gives the lie to the capitalist argument that the only way you can induce people to work is paying them to do it

[Sixiang]

rrkrvAUbU9Y

That is intense. I must show this to my right-wing government teacher.