An argument against wealth

[LBJefferies]

There are tons of these videos by the Royal Society about interesting topics. This one is about motivations behind our work and our lives and it makes for an interesting argument against wealth. Basically, wealth isn't the key motivation behind our lives. We are instead motivated by autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Personally, I fully agree with the conclusion. I am still young and haven't started my career, but I would much rather do something that I am good at and enjoy, then doing something I hate that makes more money. Anybody else agree?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc

[Farbin Kaiber]

f1x3d.

And yes, I agree. Maybe I should open a MM Clinic.

[briansjacobs]

did not watch the video but I can see no logical argument against wanting to gain wealth. Money is not evil, I have made it, I have lost it, I will make it again. Now I will say there has to be something else to work for other than just money, you will hate everyday if you only enjoy the money.

[mrsleeve]

There are tons of these videos by the Royal Society about interesting topics. This one is about motivations behind our work and our lives and it makes for an interesting argument against wealth. Basically, wealth isn't the key motivation behind our lives. We are instead motivated by autonomy, mastery, and purpose. Personally, I fully agree with the conclusion. I am still young and haven't started my career, but I would much rather do something that I am good at and enjoy, then doing something I hate that makes more money. Anybody else agree?

While I agree with you to a point. These things normally go hand in hand if you do something you are interested in and enjoy and are passionate about you are going to become successful at it. When you are successful at something then the money tends to come in in copious amounts.

The converse can be true as well you may hate it and are only doing it so you have the money to do the things you love with greater ease. The reward for going to work and gaining wealth is to do what ever it is you enjoy so much.

If you like being a social worker and helping people thats GREAT we need people like that and those that do it, do it for that reason they dont give a shit about the money its not a concern to them. Now if you passion is to help people and you happen to have a highly desirable skill or lucrative business, then you can prolly do greater good for for those people by making your fortune and then helping people the rest of the time Since you have the means to do so. You can help MORE people than just by working for the govt. In fact before entitlements this is how the poor got the same if not better assistance, though charitable giving to organizations and churches to help the poor. Now those are just more corrupted wings of the govt.

Acquirement of wealth and security is human nature, you can argue all you want in theory and social engineering what is better. But you cant count out human nature, which all those theories do. All but Capitalism that uses human nature to its advantage. You can provied for all persons equally, but its human nature to improve ones condition, to have more money, to have a nicer home, or car, or better food to eat, or not have to worry about when something bad happens and provide for ones self. When you rely on the govt or someone else for your daily bread that goes against human nature, and fundamentally why redistribution and socialism will always fail. When you leave the people alone to provide for them selves and be free, this is why Capitalism WORKS and WILL ALWAYS WORK. Those the have will give to those that dont freely not foceably.

Wealth is a subjective term that changes though out history, what was considered to be of value to nomadic people 2k years ago is not what we consider wealth to day. To them it was horses, the best woods for bows and tools, skins for shelters, and small bits of iron or bronze for the best tools, and above all FOOD. Now all those things are not really of much concern and anyone can have all of those things. Now its useless paper of which we can trade for the things we need, the more of it we have the more secure and safer we are. Because we can trade it for more things to help us survive, fundamentally nothing has changed in the last 40k years of human history its all about survival.

By forceably taking the WEALTH (what ever that may be considered) in any time and giving it to those that less of it is WRONG. You taking the hard work and carefully laid plans of one person to survive in order to give it to another because they did not plan or prepare enough is morally reprehensible.

To put this in terms you might understand, I suggest you Google Aesops Fable The ant and the grass hopper

Or your a College kid, lets say you study and work your ass off and get an A in what ever class. Now another person you dont know studies just a little bit and passes with a even 70%. Is it fair that you get the A while he get the c-??? By your logic and application of economic theory NO ITS NOT. There for you professor (the govt if you will) would have to take 15 points away from you and give to the other kid so it would be fair RIGHT. There by raising his gpa at the expense of yours. Is this making any sense yet??????????


This is why I say you are always taking the position of Larger more intrusive govt. What can be more intrusive than the govt confiscation your wealth to give to another Should I get you some more Jefferson quotes to show you where you are wrong again.

[KenC]

By forceably taking the WEALTH (what ever that may be considered) in any time and giving it to those that less of it is WRONG. You taking the hard work and carefully laid plans of one person to survive in order to give it to another because they did not plan or prepare enough is morally reprehensible.

I'm making the assumption that you're referencing taxes for welfare and similar social programs for the poor.

I'm totally playing Devil's Advocate with this question, but to what extent should the ill prepared individuals suffer? Death? If not, then a minimal social saftey-net?

I'm toward the end of a book of Ayn Rand essays, and I'm just curious about the feasibility of enacting a system of absolute capitalism in a country as large as the US.

Sorry for the tangent.

[mrsleeve]

I'm making the assumption that you're referencing taxes for welfare and similar social programs for the poor.

I'm totally playing Devil's Advocate with this question, but to what extent should the ill prepared individuals suffer? Death? If not, then a minimal social saftey-net?

I'm toward the end of a book of Ayn Rand essays, and I'm just curious about the feasibility of enacting a system of absolute capitalism in a country as large as the US.

Sorry for the tangent.

No I fully agree with a modest safety net for the truly disenfranchised. A 18 month max benefit, Section 8/govt housing is Groups of 2-5 families, and food stamps are only good for bread, milk, eggs, beans, rice, small amount of ground meat, you know the bare necessities. Make it a unpleasant experience to be in the system, the objective is to not let people starve or freeze to death, but not make is so easy that they never get outta the system, like we have going now. If its unpleasant then that's and incentive to get the fuck off it.

Before the welfare system and entitlements there was much charitable giving from all class levels and walks of life. From those that had next to nothing to those that had everything all to help those that really did have nothing. Churches and true organizations (not ACORN and others of its Ilk) for helping the poor were there and did everything our govt dose now and then some. The ranks of the poor and needy were much higher 100 years ago than it is now.

Even now in this day and age the poor dont stay poor for long, the incomes of the poor form 96-05 went up 109% while the income of the top .01% actually fell 65% and the top 1% fell 23%. Its not a matter of the govt helping some one out its a matter of some one helping them selves.

One example that sticks out in my mind was during the Coolidge administration when there was a huge drought or early crop kill off in the southern plains and TX and there were many groups petitioning the govt for aid of like 100k dollars and Coolidge said NO its not the place of the govt to step in a bail these guys out. Well through charitable donations from all over the country more the 1million dollars rolled in to help those farmers get by till the next growing season. No govt intervention at all, would that happen today, sure it would if we were not already paying for the Bail out of them too at the same time. But would we have politicians stand up and say NO, thats unlikely as they may not get another term, and staying in power is utmost goal of any politician, not what is best for the people that they work for.


In reference to the main question, Jefferson says it better than I do

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. - Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. -Thomas Jefferson.

[e30e]

I don't like money, hence why I am a poor college graduate.

[mrsleeve]

I don't like money, hence why I am a poor college graduate.

With a AG degree, I should say you dont ;)

[e30e]

With a AG degree, I should say you dont ;)

Lol, ended up not using it; just got hired to be a car salesmen in Phoenix.

[Turf1600]

What does this have to do with anything?

[StereoInstaller1]

Did ANY of you guys actually WATCH the video?

It has nothing to do with wealth.

[E30Idea]

Did ANY of you guys actually WATCH the video?

It has nothing to do with wealth.

;)

[E30Kaiser]

Did ANY of you guys actually WATCH the video?

It has nothing to do with wealth.

I know, why are people talking about welfare and stuff? The whole point of the video is about motivation, and feeling happy about the work you do as a worker, and as an employer, making people feel like the job they do matters and do a better job. The only time money came into this was the fact that past a certain point, more money does not help.

[Turf1600]

They actually say it right in the film - the trick to productive employees is paying them enough so that money is not an issue. Then they can perform.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't care to be crazy wealthy. I just want to be able to do what I want. I think between 100 and 200k will suffice.

[LBJefferies]

I know, why are people talking about welfare and stuff? The whole point of the video is about motivation, and feeling happy about the work you do as a worker, and as an employer, making people feel like the job they do matters and do a better job. The only time money came into this was the fact that past a certain point, more money does not help.

Perhaps I should have used a different title. The point I was trying to make is that money/profit/wealth are not the most important incentives that people have to work. The capitalist mindset of this country has people thinking that the only way things will get done is if you pay people, as if money is the sole incentive. This video shows that is not the case. So it does make an interesting argument against wealth and in support of a more *gasp* socialist system.