Hard-wired to earn more than we need?

[Eudo]

Here's a somewhat contrived psychological experiment that suggests we humans tend to work as much as we can bear, even if we end up earning more than we can consume.

http://www.randomhouse.ca/hazlitt/blog/why-people-work-rewards-theyll-never-get-enjoy

In a rational world, you’d expect participants to earn as much chocolate as they thought they could enjoy, then sit back and listen to music. The lower earners would need to subject themselves to more noise in order to earn they same amount as the high-rollers, but presumably everyone would stop once they’d earned their fill.

In reality, researchers found their test subjects earning far more chocolate than anyone would ever hope to consume. High-earners earned an average of 10.74 chocolates but only ate 4.26. They needlessly exposed themselves to unpleasant noises, then left the majority of their earnings on the table.

Low-earners, meanwhile, earned slightly less chocolate than they could eat, but listened to about the same number of sounds. This suggests that both groups weren’t considering the optimal results, but rather how much work they could bear. Instead of trying to create the most enjoyable experience, they unthinkingly worked as much as possible, stockpiling useless treasure.

[arebelspy]

I've read that study in the past year or so as well.

However last night I was reading the first chapter of The Worldly Philosophers, and he was talking about the opposite - it seems this phenomenon of working to get more than we need is a modern thing, not "hard wired" as suggested here.

Excerpt from The Worldly Philosophers (emphasis added):

The profit motive as we know it is only as old as “modern man.” Even today the notion of gain for gain’s sake is foreign to a large portion of the world’s population, and it has been conspicuous by its absence over most of recorded history. Sir William Petty, an astonishing seventeenth-century character (who was in his lifetime cabin boy, hawker, clothier, physician, professor of music, and founder of a school named Political Arithmetick), claimed that when wages were good, labor was “scarce to be had at all, so licentious are they who labor only to eat, or rather to drink.” And Sir William was not merely venting the bourgeois prejudices of his day. He was observing a fact that can still be remarked among the unindustrialized peoples of the world: a raw working force, unused to wagework, uncomfortable in factory life, unschooled to the idea of an ever-rising standard of living, will not work harder if wages rise; it will simply take more time off. The idea of gain, the idea that each working person not only may, but should, constantly strive to better his or her material lot, is an idea that was quite foreign to the great lower and middle strata of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, only scattered throughout Renaissance and Reformation times; and largely absent in the majority of Eastern civilizations. As a ubiquitous characteristic of society, it is as modern an invention as printing.

[dcheesi]

I don't know about it being entirely "new", but i do think that it's at least partly cultural. In particular, I think Northern climates tend to encourage a tendency to over-produce when times are good, in order to prepare for when times are bad ("Winter is coming" ;).  Hence the  New England "Protestant work ethic", etc.  Whereas more equatorial climates, with milder seasons and a general abundance of nutritious lifeforms, tend to encourage/allow a more day-by-day approach.

The social mobility issue is a whole separate question. Keep in mind that the rigid social strata of ancient civilizations were just as much a "new" construct in their day as our modern society is now. Obviously lower/middle classes who are actively prevented from improving their lot will eventually learn to stop trying. But that doesn't mean that that's a natural state of man; it may just be "learned helplessness" kicking in.

What would be more interesting would be to study people in more primal cultures. But the problem there is that there is a selection bias, in that the cultures that still live close to a state of nature are largely those that are biased against behaviors (including over-production) that would encourage their development into more structured civilizations.

[SwordGuy]

I've read that study in the past year or so as well.

However last night I was reading the first chapter of The Worldly Philosophers, and he was talking about the opposite - it seems this phenomenon of working to get more than we need is a modern thing, not "hard wired" as suggested here.

Excerpt from The Worldly Philosophers (emphasis added):

The profit motive as we know it is only as old as “modern man.” Even today the notion of gain for gain’s sake is foreign to a large portion of the world’s population, and it has been conspicuous by its absence over most of recorded history. Sir William Petty, an astonishing seventeenth-century character (who was in his lifetime cabin boy, hawker, clothier, physician, professor of music, and founder of a school named Political Arithmetick), claimed that when wages were good, labor was “scarce to be had at all, so licentious are they who labor only to eat, or rather to drink.” And Sir William was not merely venting the bourgeois prejudices of his day. He was observing a fact that can still be remarked among the unindustrialized peoples of the world: a raw working force, unused to wagework, uncomfortable in factory life, unschooled to the idea of an ever-rising standard of living, will not work harder if wages rise; it will simply take more time off. The idea of gain, the idea that each working person not only may, but should, constantly strive to better his or her material lot, is an idea that was quite foreign to the great lower and middle strata of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, and medieval cultures, only scattered throughout Renaissance and Reformation times; and largely absent in the majority of Eastern civilizations. As a ubiquitous characteristic of society, it is as modern an invention as printing.

One of my top ten favorite books!

[dragoncar]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mindless-accummulation/

[soccerluvof4]

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/mindless-accummulation/

I remember reading this, this really hit home with me because enough was never enough.

A great book and simple read is " The world according to Pooh" .  Compares great philosophers to Pooh. We all need to be a bit more ho hum! haha