A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

motivation

Does Socialism Destroy Incentives?

by Leave a Comment

Donald Trump in February 2009
Image via Wikipedia

Let us suppose that Obama really wants to ram socialism down America’s throat. Is this a bad thing?

It is generally assumed that socialism is bad because…well, because it is socialism. That is something that Europeans do, like eating quiche or losing wars. However, are there good arguments as to why socialism itself is inherently bad?

To keep the discussion focused narrowly, I’ll stick with the stock argument: socialism destroys incentive. If, the argument goes, the state owns everything then people have no incentive to strive and this will result in a wide variety of problems from individual laziness to a general economic decline. Interestingly, the same folks who make this argument also tend to be the same folks who argue against the minimum wage (or at least increasing it).

The argument is usually presented in the context of a form of socialism in which there is no difference in pay or rewards. That is, from each according to his ability and to each according to exact equality. However, this form of socialism is not the only form. State ownership of the economic system does not require that individuals cannot be paid more or less or rewarded more or less. All that state ownership requires is that the state owns the economic entities.

But, one might argue, if people cannot strive to own a company or corporation, then they would have no incentive at all. In reply, the truth is that the vast majority of people have no chance of ever owning a company or corporation. Rather, the odds are that they will be working for a business that is owned by someone else (and these owners are a small percentage of the population). Amazingly enough, these people still work even though they really have no chance of owning a company or corporation. Now, imagine that the state owns the company rather than Donald Trump or Bill Gates. From the employees’ standpoint, nothing has really changed. To use an analogy, claiming that state ownership will destroy incentive is a bit like saying that getting rid of pro sports would destroy the incentive to play sports or exercise. True, there would be some impact. But it would be much smaller than one might imagine.

In response, it could be argued that under socialism there would be no privately owned small businesses and this would destroy incentives. After all, while most people have no chance of owning a corporation (aside from a bit of stock, of course) a person can start his or her own business. Without such an incentive, disaster would ensue.

The same reply can be given as above: again, most folks do not own businesses and really have no realistic chance of doing so and hence most folks are not motivated by this. Rather, most folks are motivated to work because they need the money.

Aha, one might say, under socialism there will be no such needs. People will have all their needs taken care of and hence will have no incentive to work.

In reply, if this were true, then what would be the problem? This would be a “Star Trek” future of plenty and no want. This seems awesome.

But, one might say, this would not be an awesome world. Rather, it would be awful because everything would be crappy. When everyone’s basic needs would be met, the other needs would be left unfulfilled because people would lack any incentive to fill them because they could not make lots of money doing so.

While this has some appeal, it would seem that if people are suffering because their needs are left unfulfilled, then they would have an incentive to act to fulfill them-even if they could not make lots of money doing so. Also, people are often motivated by factors other than money. Think, for example, of all the free stuff on the web that people create and share without the hope of profit. Think, also, of community service and volunteer work. While profit does motivate, there are other strong motivators that would provide considerable incentives.

A final point to consider is the negative aspects of the profit motivation. Folks driven solely by greed tend to lead us into disasters. While a healthy desire for profit can be fine, it must be tempered by other motives as well or such a drive can become monstrous and damaging

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Palin: Take the Money & Run?

by 3 Comments

Sarah: How a Hockey Mom Turned Alaska's Politi...
Image via Wikipedia

There has been considerable speculation over why Sarah Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska. One hypothesis is that she resigned because she has a multimillion dollar book deal. That would make some sense. After all, people do often say that the first thing they would do after winning the lottery is quit their job. Perhaps Palin sees herself as a lottery winner.

There are also rumors that Palin believes that there are many other deals waiting for her. While I am not an expert on the law, I’m reasonable sure that holding the office of governor limits the sorts of money making deals that a person can accept. Perhaps Palin looked at the opportunities that would be available to her if she left office and was won over by the power of green.

Of course, this is all speculation. It can, however, be assessed in an empirical way: if Palin avails herself of such deals, then that would lend credence to the claim that her motivation was financial. Of course, even this would not be conclusive. After all, she might have left office for other (and more noble) reasons and simply decided to take advantage of the offers. It would, of course, be foolish to say “no” to such deals.

Now, if Palin were to reject such deals and instead devoted her time and energy to the public good, then the claim that she was financially motivated would be undercut.

Naturally, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with her leaving a job to seek a better income. If by quitting my current job I could make millions of dollars, I would do so. After all, I could still teach for free and could also do more good than I do now-that kind of money would pay all my debts, provide me with a fine income and still leave me plenty of money with which to create scholarships, give to charity, help my friends & family and aid my community.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Easy Exercise 2: Motivation

by Leave a Comment

Lance Armstrong finishing 3rd in Sète, taking ...
Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to exercise, two of the big obstacles are time and motivation. I’ve written about finding time and now I’ll turn to motivation.

I have noticed that almost everyone says that they would like to exercise and get fit. This usually happens around the holidays (“damn, I’m packing on the pounds…I better start exercising”) and most especially around the New Year (“time for yet another empty resolution about fitness”). In most cases, these good intentions result in one or two feeble attempts at exercise and then lead the person back to the hell of Cheetos and plenty of couch time. So, how can a normal person get motivated and, more importantly, stay motivated? Naturally, this varies from person to person, but here are some ideas.

Negative Motivations
People often try to self motivate by using negative motivations.  Negative motivation is when you exercise in order to prevent or undo something negative-like being fat or having a heart attack.  For example, after devouring all that Halloween candy, Thanksgiving turkey and Christmas cookies a person might decide that they need to exercise because they are fat. As another example, a person might find they have hypertension and decide they need to exercise to avoid being found dead on the couch, covered in moldy Cheetos.

Negative motivators can work, but they are based primarily on fear and worry. The main downsides to using negative motivation are as follows. First, it is easy to stop exercising when you think that you have solved the problem. Then the problem comes right back. Second, such a negative approach can be psychologically problematic. For example, if someone focuses on being fat, this can lead to issues and problems. Third, it can be difficult to maintain the worry or concern that provided the initial motivation. For example, people often get quite comfortable living with being overweight or having higher blood pressure.

Rewards & Punishments
People are, of course, motivated by rewards and punishments. One way to motivate yourself to exercise is to reward yourself for exercising or punish yourself for slacking. For example, a person might treat herself to a slice of her favorite pie when she sticks to her workout schedule all week. If she does not meet her goal, then no pie for her. The plus side is that  rewards and punishments do tend to work. One problem is, of course, the fact that if you are rewarding yourself, then you will need the willpower to hold back rewards when you do not meet your goals. Also, it can be a bit creepy to hear about a person rewarding and punishing themselves-and such behavior can lead to some psychological problems (like a person cutting way back on her food for being “bad”).

The way I use this method is a very minor way. If I exercise more, then I feel free to eat more of the fattening things I like. If my exercise hasn’t been quite up to par, then I’ll (for example) have a smaller slice of key-lime pie.

Exercising with Others
One effective way to stay motivated is to exercise with other people. This has many motivational benefits. First, a person is less likely to back out of exercising if s/he has planned to exercise with others. This adds a social push to sticking with it. This is especially true if you are involved in a team sport. Second, people can support each other when the exercising becomes challenging. Third, if you like the people you exercise with, you will want to spend time with them and this is motivational. On the downside, being in a group can sometimes make it easier to stop. For example, if you are just one person on a big softball team, it can be easy to say that someone else will cover for you if you miss a game or six. Another problem is that you might become reliant on others so that if they stop, you will stop. And, of course, there is always the risk of personality conflicts. But, in general, exercising with other people can be a big help-just be sure to try to find people you like and who will stick with the activity.

This method can be very effective if you exercise with family members or friends. Spouses often find it motivational to exercise with their spouse-although some do not.

Coach/Trainer
Some people have the money to spend on a personal coach or trainer. Such a person can be quite a motivator in two ways. First, they are supposed to professionals at motivating slackers. Second, if you are paying them, you might be more inclined to actually use their services.

On the minus side, they cost money and it is easy to get dependent on a trainer. If for some reason you can no longer afford your own trainer, then it can be very easy to quit.

You can, of course, get free or cheap coaching and training. Sports clubs and teams often provide such services freely or at low prices. For example, my running club has running classes for beginners and intermediate runners that provide excellent training. As another example, softball leagues typically provide practices and coaching for little or no cost. People who have been in a sport or activity for a while are often quite willing to help out beginners.

Before the web, the way to find out about such groups was to go to a sports store and look for fliers. These days, the web is the place to look. For example, to find a running club, just Google using “running”, “club”, and your city/town/area.

Schools also often offer low cost classes and activities to members of the community, although some universities limit participation to students, faculty, staff and alumni.

Getting proper coaching and training can really help with motivation. A good trainer/coach can inspire a person, provide reasonable goals and also help a person do the activity right. After all, when people do poorly at something, they are often inclined to give up.

Set Realistic Goals
While all sorts of TV ads promise amazing results in a short time, fitness is a slow process. The body will begin to adapt to exercise quickly, but the results will not be very noticeable for a while. For example, weight lifting usually takes about six weeks before any results (other than soreness) are noticeable. Running also takes time to improve endurance. The martial arts require years of training.

So, how do you know what sort of goals are realistic? The best thing to do is to research this-and not by watching TV ads. Find people who have been in the activity a while, check on credible web sites, talk to trainers and coaches and read a credible book or two. While finding the truth about exercise might be a bit disappointing, having realistic expectations actually helps in sticking with an activity. For example, if a person thinks he’ll be ready to run a marathon a month after he starts running, then he’ll probably give up running when he has a horrific marathon. In contrast, someone who runs her first 5K after three months of training will be more likely to stick with the sport.

You will also need to assess yourself. People vary a great deal in their abilities. For example, it was realistic of Lance Armstrong to plan on hitting the three hour mark in the marathon despite not being a runner. After all, he was a world class cyclist. In contrast, a person who is an ex-smoker, overweight and hasn’t exercise since high school gym class will need to set fairly modest goals initially.

One common mistake that people make is that they overdo their exercise the first time they try it. When a person starts out, they are well rested and will probably feel pretty good running more than they really should, biking too far, or lifting too much. They will then feel really awful, sore and tired the next day or two. This tends to seriously dampen a person’s motivation. As such, it is vitally important to have realistic goals right from the start.

Schedule & Don’t Skip
It is a good idea to have an exercise plan and schedule. A person who exercises “whenever’ will find it much harder to stick with exercising. So, I’d suggest working out a realistic schedule.

Exercise is in some ways like quitting smoking. If a person tries to quit smoking, but decided to just have “one smoke”, then they will most likely not quit. Likewise, if a person who is trying to exercise decides to just “take today off”, then that breaks the exercise pattern and makes it easier to just stop. This is not to say that a person must or even should exercise everyday. In fact, it is best to take a day or more off each week to avoid injury and over-training. However, a planned exercise should not be skipped.

Habituation
Of course, it is easy to say that you should stick to a schedule. The challenge is making it stick. The way to this is habituation. This, of course, comes right out of Aristotle‘s discussion of moral education. His view is that by habituation people become virtuous. In the case of exercise, the more you exercise, the easier it becomes to stick with it. For many people, the trick is to stick with it until that critical point of habituation is reached. For example, when I first started running I did not enjoy it at all. it hurt, made me feel sick, and was tiring. But, I stuck with it and eventually reached a point where not running was far harder than running.

Habituation requires the obvious: repeat the activity on a regular basis until it becomes a habit. This, of course, generates something of a paradox: to be able to stick with exercise, you must first stick with exercise. But, if you can stick with it, then you would seem to not need to habituate yourself to stick with it. If you can’t stick with it, then you’ll never be able to habituate yourself. So, how do you unravel this paradox?

As noted above, you have to stick with it until you hit that habituation point. This means that you need just enough will to get to that point, then after that it will be easier. To use an analogy, it is like biking a hill: you need enough strength to get to the top and then the rest is easy. Getting to this point requires using the other motivation methods. Once you hit the habituation point, then you’ll find it much easier to stick with it.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Be Good? II

by 9 Comments

In Christianity, Satan is considered the being...
Image via Wikipedia

While I am a philosopher, I am also (obviously enough) a person. While it is tempting to look at philosophical problems from a purely abstract vantage point (that of the academic philosopher) it also seems important to look at them as a person.

One problem I have thought about for quite some time is the question of why I should be good. Of course, this does raise the quetsion of what sort of good I should be. But, I’ll set that aside for now and just pretend that I know what good is so I can focus on why I should (or should not) be good.

One way to look at the problem is to see if I have a motivation to be good. Like most people, being harmed by others concerns me and provides some motivation to behave certain ways. So, to avoid being harmed by others I do have a psychological motivation to avoid being bad. Or, more honestly, to avoid being caught.

Of course, this motivation does not really move me. After all, if I accept that I am just good to avoid being punished, then I am motived by fear and that strikes me as a weakness. I would be acting from the motivation of a potential victim and as a pragmatic coward. I would, as Aristotle might say, be ruled by the fear of pain. Staying on the path because I fear that others will whip me like a errant donkey hardly seems like a noble and proper life for a human being. As such, I need a better motivation. Also, honesty compels me to admit that this is also a matter of pride.

I’ve never really tried being truly evil. Really. Of course, if I had, I certainly would not be such a fool as to admit it. But, I have had moral failings. I’ve also done good things. Based on these experiences, I am inclined to agree with Aristotle and Plato: being good is like being healthy-you feel better because you are better. Being bad is like being sick: you feel bad because you are bad. Some of this might be psychological and social conditioning. However, it all cannot be-for in some cases my moral views lead me against what I have been conditioned to accept.

Of course, someone might say that being good because it makes me healthy is just being pragmatic. In a way, that is  a fair charge. The same charge could be leveled against me in regards to physical health: I exercise and try to otherwise take care of myself because doing so makes me fit and healthy. That seems sensible and right. After all, I am choosing what is objectively better for me for the sake of being better. I am choosing what is right because it is right. Or so I hope.

Someone might say that I am just doing what I want to do. However,  I am not just doing what I want to do-I am doing what will actually make me better. To chose what is best because it  is best seems to be a proper choice. Making that choice to avoid being whipped like a donkey is not a proper choice, but an act of fear.

So, what about people who are evil? If they do so because they give in to temptation, then they have not really made a moral choice. They have simply been lured off the path by their weakness. But what about someone who knowingly walks off the path, choosing to be evil? Clearly, they would have made a bad choice (by definition). But, they would be making a choice  and perhaps acting in a way more proper to a human than those who just follow the path out of fear of the whips. These people might be among the most dangerous people of all-they would be hard to deter with punishments or lure with temptations.

But, a clever person might say, do not the people who stay on the path because of the whippings or leave the path due to temptations also make choices? On one hand, the obvious answer is that they do: they chose to be ruled by weakness (cowardice or lust, for example). On the other hand, it could be argued that they are not choosing. Rather, they are being ruled by their weaknesses-it is their fear or desires that drive them on or off the path; not an act of conscious will.

I’m not saying anything original here-just hashing through this problem.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Be Good?

by Leave a Comment

One of the fundamental questions in ethics is “why be good?” This question certainly seems to assume that people need a reason to be good. This would seem to entail that people would prefer not being good. For the most part, philosophers have accepted this assumption and have attempted to give people a reason to be good rather than bad.

The answers given to this question tend to fall into two main camps. The first consists of external motivations to be good. The second consists of internal motivations.

External motivations are, of course, motivations that come from outside the person. The most common of these is the practical answer to the question: be good to avoid being punished. This sort of answer is commonly given in a religious context: people should be good so as to avoid divine punishment (such as hell) and to receive a divine reward (such as heaven). Naturally enough, this motivation need not rest on the divine. After all, people can punish each other.

On the plus side, this answer provides a clear motivation to people. After all, people prefer to avoid being harmed and generally like being rewarded.

On the downside, if someone can (or believes they can) avoid the punishment, then this would not motivate them. Also, if the motivation is based on a religious view, those who do not share that view will not be motivated by this divine threat.

A concern about this motivation is that it is not a moral motivation. Rather, it is a purely pragmatic motivation. It is not based on a commitment to do good but rather a commitment to avoid harm and reap rewards. As such, a person who behaves ethically because of this would seem to be a pragmatic person rather than a good person. After all, if doing evil would enable him to reap rewards and avoid punishment, then he would do evil deeds. This applies, of course, even in the religious context.

Interestingly, those who are good because they believe that God will reward them for being good and send them to hell for being evil are not actually good people. They might do good deeds, but they are not doing these deeds because the deeds are good. Rather, they are doing the deeds because they expect to get a payoff and avoid punishment. If these people are not good, then what are they?

The obvious answer is that they are practical, self-interested and perhaps even selfish. They are not doing what they think is best, but doing what they think is best for them. This is really no different from obeying a tyrant or a gangster out of fear of punishment and hope of reward.

The second camp consists of internal motivations to be good. The usual answer given by philosophers is that doing good will make a person happy. Of course, it might be pointed out that this reason to be good also seems to be self-serving: if a person is good so as to be happy, then her motivation is to be happy. Presumably if being evil made her happier, then she would embrace evil.

The standard counter to this is that happiness depends on being good. For example, Aristotle argued that to be truly happy a person would need to be virtuous.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Compensation

by 36 Comments

While the Dow has taken an upswing, there is still plenty to worry about in the economy. Meanwhile, people are still upset over the AIG bonuses. On the plus side, the mystery of who allowed the exception that made such payouts legal was solved: Chris Dodd.

Dodd claimed that the Obama folks made him put the exception into the law. Two reasons are given for this decision by the Obama folks: 1) concern about the possibility of legal problems and 2) the view that such compensation would be needed to retain the top people.

I can understand the concern about legal worries. After all, breaking contracts after the fact does seem to be a rather thorny area-especially when the contracts are held by people who have access to some of the best lawyer (and politicians) money can buy.

As far the retention argument, that requires some consideration. The argument is that such exceptional compensation is needed to get top talent to stay with (and supposedly save) bailed out companies.

Is it the case that people will only take a job that pays exceptionally well? Clearly not-people routinely take jobs that pay very poorly. These people often work very hard at these jobs-witness the typical sweat shop laborer. Those folks work long, grueling hours for tiny amounts of cash.

Of course, most people who work such jobs do so because they have no choice. The top talent folks have a choice, hence they can demand more compensation or go elsewhere to get it.

Of course, people who do have choices often work very hard for less than exceptional compensation. One might wonder why these top talent folks should be entitled to such exceptional compensation when other folks would be glad to have such jobs even at a fraction of the pay. In other words, what justifies the claim that such folks should get that exceptional compensation? Why not just say “godd riddance” to these folks and get people in there who will do the job for less? After all, isn’t that what companies do to save money? For example, when companies outsource they are getting people to do the same job (or so they claim) for far less. Surely the same logic should apply all the way to the top.

It might be argued that the top talent cannot be replaced in this manner-that they are so top in their talent there are no other folks that can be hired to do the same quality of work at a lower price. Of course, given that many of these top talent folks were instrumental in wrecking the economy, one wonders about their talents and motivations.

Of course, there are top talent people that do earn their money. As odd as this might seem, a professional athlete or a top actor can be good examples. For example, if a star player or actor is paid $50 million, but she brings in $75 million in profits, then she has certainly earned her pay-just as a McDonald’s worker who gets paid minimum wage but whose labor makes a profit. The basic principle is that compensation is justified by contribution. So, exceptional contributions earn exceptional compensation.

In the case of athletes, actors and other stars, it is obvious that they can bring in massive profits and hence earn those massive paychecks. For example, a single star can significantly impact the box office take of a film. This is because people will see the film because of her and would not see the same film if it had not starred that actress.

However, is the same true in the case of the top talent in business? Does a top talent person really create wealth in proportion to their compensation? Prior to the economic disaster it seemed as if they did-top talent worked all sorts of “magic” that created money out of nothing. But, as it turned out, that money largely went back to nothing once again.

So, my view is this-if a person really does contribute exceptionally to the success of a company, then they have earned exceptional compensation. Such people would be well worth the price. After all, if paying $30 million in salary and bonuses gets a person whose efforts and ideas single handedly generates $100 million for the company, then she is a good deal. Unless, of course, you can get a person who would generate $80 million in return for $5 million and so on.

No doubt some top talent earn their keep and then some. However, I suspect that in many case, the “top talent” of corporate folks is somehow getting sweet bonuses in return for little or nothing.

I’ll also repeat an offer I made before: if I can get permission for a leave of absence from Florida A&M University, I’ll gladly be a top executive for a bailout company for that oh so pitiful $400,000 a year. I bet I’ll do far less damage than most of the current “top talent” has done.

%d bloggers like this: