Friday, March 4, 2011

What's Sufficient & What's Luxurious?

Man Will Never Have Enough Of ...


We eat to live and not live to eat
Enjoying food is not a sin; gluttony is

When you pay, how much is too much? Is there a limit that above which the person will turn down your payment and do it just as effectively and with unquestioned commitment

According to Dan Ariely, in his book Predictably Irrational, a person is more productive, if not as productive, compared to a paid person, when he helps/attempts a social issue. However, if payment is involved, the productivity varies according to the rewards.

Social norms almost always clash with market norms

If you pay your employee sufficiently, he is committed and motivated
If you pay him luxuriously, he is probably motivated more by money than his love for the job; the underlying fear that "if I commit an error, I may be asked to leave"! His motivation will shift from doing his work well to protecting his turf

When the poor spends on living, its 'every cents count'
When the rich spends, its fractional
Will the rich bothers about the poor? Less likely except for those whom they deem of use; the poor is a means to an end

Will those who are born with silver spoons empathise with the poor? Less likely
Not that they don't want but its like 'the soldiers in the trench and the General in his air-con office during Vietnam war'

How to relate and empathise? If the pay is good, the risk is minimal, the job is cosy and the position is respectful, it pays to indulge and shift responsibilities

Like the oft mentioned, "Its good to have a nuclear power plant so long as its not near my neighbourhood" ...

Everyone needs to be rewarded
Over-rewarding kills positive motivation and brews desertion of responsibilities; all else is a charade

If your maid is worth $500 and you pays her $3000, she will employ someone to do the job and slack!!!

Agree?

Money alone does not guarantee optimal results ... Dan Ariely

No comments: