one great mystery of our age is how the only way to motivate rich people to work is to give them loads of money for no reason but the only way to motivate poor people to work is to take away loads of their money for no reason
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
For example, the rich have enjoyed basic income for a very long time. It's part of what helps them be rich and stay rich. And yet they don't want everyone else to have it. It makes sense why they would want that, but it doesn't make sense why the non-rich go along with that nonsense.
Absolutely - and little realisation that a little bit of extra help when people need it most is actually an investment that enables them to be less reliant on the state later on.
Also every single penny the poor get is reinvested in the economy, unlike with the rich who finnel it off shore.
I think the need to eat, has a lot more to do with motivating “the poor, and also finding a location to use the toilet. Poor people do not have “loads of money” to lose, by definition that is what makes them “poor”.
In the US and UK (and, I'm afraid, in Ireland these days) poverty is seen as a failing of the individual and therefore the responsibility rests with the individual to fix it.
In much of the rest of Europe, poverty is seen as a failing of the state with the state being tasked to fix it.
Correct! Even my students… who shouldn’t have to work, think it’s basically their fault they don’t have much money so the “hustle” is more important than school work or even friends. (It’s also a very Calvinist mindset that the pilgrims brought over here and it stuck)
One of my favourite insights is how research shows that immiseration and stress completely destroy people's health and prevent them making useful contributions to society and work so we've decided to ensure that poor people should live in constant penury and misery.
Yup. Around 2011 I read an excellent book about research in to wealth inequality that covered much of this in detail. I'll be dammed if i can recall what the book was called (I think it had a goldfish bowl on the cover)
My idea for a UK reality TV show.
(Impossible but) Kidnap the like of Jacob Rees-Mogg. Hypnotise them to forget they're past. Set them into a low wage 60+ hours a week to survive job.
What their "decide to be rich" mentality get them out of the misery and wage cage.
One of the things that always upsets me is the taking away of food from the poor. We have so much food in this country that there is no reason that anyone should go hungry. But it’s constantly used as a cudgel, “ work or go hungry,” as if being hungry helps anyone to work harder.
Or to rephrase;
- the rich who don't need it are motivated (apparently) by making it easy to get more of what they don't need,
- taking from those who don't or barely have enough encourages, in reality making it harder for them to get what they need, is fair?
Same reason banks will bend over backwards to help the reckless, over-leveraged, asset rich to get back on track after bankruptcy, but will take everything from the working poor who fall behind through no fault of their own.
And I’m neither, nor does the UK pay good wages or provide opportunities based on performance, so there is no route to motivating me to work more. Only the rich are benefiting in our age.
The more you look at it the deeper it goes. Poor people provided with a universal basic income will become lazy and unproductive. But a rich person given enough to live on for life will discover gravity, paint great works, write literature that scores white hot trails across the soul. It's a mystery
It doesn't explicitly answer that but the book "Poor Economics" touches on a lot of related matters with evidence.
If I reread it soon I'll try and keep my mind open for an answer.
There's no fixed line, but traditionally it's when you cross over to being an owner and not a worker. So if you distribute wages, and not draw them; if you collect rent, and not pay it; if you live on passive income, and not labor for it, that's when you're let into the club.
The state drives its market economy by issuing credit to some and debt to others, with profit motivating everyone else to be middlemen. Currently we issue credit to producers and debt to labor, but this is a coercive institution - we could just as well give UBI to consumers and tax passive income.
Not saying it's right, but they do have an answer for this: some people are better than others and the "Good" People can only be attracted with money whereas the "bad" People can only be motivated through the threat of withholding it
Well, not necessarily if you believe some people are inherently better than others and deserving of more. To me, this is the baseline distinction between the right and the left: do you believe that some people have a right to dominate others because they are somehow superior to them?
It's Calvinism and its mutant offspring, the Prosperity Gospel.
They've equated material wealth with moral character and standing. So, the rich are quite literally 'good' and should be rewarded as such; the poor are deficient and need to be corrected, punitively, for their lack of moral character.
Dear friends, I am talking to you from Gaza, in which we were subjected to a devastating war in which we lost everything we have, we ask you to participate and donate to start our lives again. You are the only hope, please https://www.gofundme.com/f/56mx4-help-me-to-reunion-with-my-family
Comments
But people in the city have to be paid immoral amounts to prevent a 'brain drain'
Also every single penny the poor get is reinvested in the economy, unlike with the rich who finnel it off shore.
In much of the rest of Europe, poverty is seen as a failing of the state with the state being tasked to fix it.
Strictly I prefer to observe them as parasites. Especially in certain roles and "jobs" (investment banker!).
(Impossible but) Kidnap the like of Jacob Rees-Mogg. Hypnotise them to forget they're past. Set them into a low wage 60+ hours a week to survive job.
What their "decide to be rich" mentality get them out of the misery and wage cage.
The wealthy and the powerful have the freedom to tell you to go fuck yourself, and so must be bribed.
The poor have no power, and can easily be threatened with the loss of the tiny scrap of freedom you allow them.
- the rich who don't need it are motivated (apparently) by making it easy to get more of what they don't need,
- taking from those who don't or barely have enough encourages, in reality making it harder for them to get what they need, is fair?
Any found not doing so get taken into administration because if they can't pay their employees they are clearly failed companies.
When you understand that accumulating wealth depends on other people working harder yet remaining poor, this has, at least, internal consistency.
At what income/amount of wealth does the best way to motivate people switch from immiserating them to giving them huge sums of money?
If I reread it soon I'll try and keep my mind open for an answer.
Taxing them so they don’t have enough money for food, usually does.
But when it is suggested to tax the rich, the response is that we need to enable their wealth to motivate them to keep being productive.
"I need the reward for motivation. But you, you probably need the punishment." 🤔
They've equated material wealth with moral character and standing. So, the rich are quite literally 'good' and should be rewarded as such; the poor are deficient and need to be corrected, punitively, for their lack of moral character.
It's eugenics.
https://www.gofundme.com/f/56mx4-help-me-to-reunion-with-my-family