More carrot

Despite less need to, the motivation to work relies increasingly on the stick

No one likes to get up in the morning, least of all, the Free Range Economist. But it is seen as a good thing to have a reason to get out of bed. For most people, what rouses them from their nightly slumber is the need to go out to earn a living. Without such demands being placed on us, there is a fear that not only would the economy cease to function but that we, as individuals, would also languish. Some lucky people look forward to their job but work has become more effort and less rewarding for many. As such, it seems as if the stick (rather than the carrot) has become a more important source of motivation at a time when it should be needed less.

The need to toil away to ensure survival has been a constant throughout much all of human history. The precarious nature of life meant that (mostly) everyone had to be made to do their bit for the group to ensure their continued existence. Even children and the elderly were pressed into service to eek out every additional bit. Over time, the pressures to labour away have eased as society has become wealthier. The working day has been limited to eight hours a day for most people with two days of rest on the weekend, while children are sent to school instead of jobs with retirement beckoning after a long working life.

Not only had time devoted to work been declining but jobs also provided, along with a pay packet, a sense of purpose and social standing. Yet, while the quantity of goods being produced has increased dramatically, it could be argued that the quality of many jobs, in terms of pay and purpose, has declined. The combined forces of automation along with globalization has eroded better-paid employment that had been the foundation of the middle class. In place of such jobs in manufacturing or administration, work now offers lower pay and less security, particularly for those with less education. This trend is party because technology has tended to make many jobs either redundant or strips away the skills required. Future developments such as driverless cars and artificial intelligence are expected to push this trend even further.   

With fewer opportunities to build up skills on the job, workers have become more easily replaceable, often giving the upper hand to their employer. Companies can demand more of workers, having greater say over when and where they work while monitoring them to get more out of them while on the job. Workers have little choice but to put up with this as support from government has been weakened over the past decade. The result being that, rather than those being left behind by technological change being given a helping hand through access to retraining and other types of assistance, support in the form of welfare payments have been cut.

How we deal with both the limited options for meaningful employment depends on how we see human nature – are we all lazy if left to our own devices or can anyone prosper given a little help and encouragement? It could be argued that there are plenty of jobs going for anyone willing to work. And those that toil away are understandably unwilling to help out anyone not playing their part. People seems to be less sympathetic to those left behind now that most people are relatively comfortable (or can working towards getting there). Yet, in a society where wealth is a route to status, working for minimum wage with little prospect of improvement is not a great motivator. And the expectation that hard work now would help provide a better life for your children, which is no longer a given, is not the carrot that it once was.

It could be argued that, while the stick is occasionally necessary for motivating people, it would be preferable to use the carrot as much as possible. It is both easier and more efficient to get people to do something if they want to rather than if they feel compelled to. Also, with the current productive capacity, boosting output is less of a priority than in the past. Even with the bulk of workers asked to stay at home during the Covid lockdowns, the economy could still function to the extent of providing everyone with at least the basics.

Government policy could be used to make up for the shortfall in meaningful employment such as through increasing the minimum wage so that even the tedious but necessary jobs (that also got us through the Covid pandemic) offer up more of a reward. Worker standard could also be tightened so that employees have more leverage in defining the way in which they want to work. Without any intervention, work practices will continue as they have been, with companies under no pressure to make any changes that could offer significant improvements for workers (although working from home over lockdown could spur on some changes).

Over time, the harsher edges of the capitalist economy have been smoothed away through measures such as limits to working hours and support for the unemployed. Greater use of the stick could be seen as a backwards move but it has also occurred at a time when rising inequality (another potential downside of capitalism) has also returned. Changes such as globalization could mean that market forces may have increased in strength as business has bulked up to operate on an international scale. But political forces are likely to stand in the way as people are not likely to accept the greater demands that the economy has thrust upon them.

While older people might still remember times of hardship, the new generation of workers are more accustomed to being spurred on by a sense of purpose. Whereas the promise of material comfort might have been enough for workers in the past, many of the young have grown up in households where getting by was not a struggle. As such, more recent hires will want more from a job than a pay packet (if they are not working minimum wage) and these demands might feed through into politics. And then sticks will be used to beat the drums of change.