[Lutger]

Regardless of the commercial success of coops, your premise that the main reason for work is money does not hold up to scrutiny. If merely adequately compensated, money turns out to be really low on the list of things that actually motivates people.

[jnurmine]

I see this claim a lot in different contexts, and personally have never quite understood who it really talks about.

It cannot talk about everyone, because there are many different kinds of people and work sectors. I'd expect the motivational priorities to exist on a continuum, on which some people are more motivated by money than others. Also, the "adequate compensation" varies from person to person; some are happy with some level, some are never happy.

I mean, I find it extremely hard to believe that things like, say, "respect from co-workers" and "interesting work tasks" would factor in as the primary source of motivation for e.g. anyone working a low-paying job and living from paycheck to paycheck, regardless of who exactly (worker, employer, state, someone else) thinks the compensation is adequate. In contrast, for someone who already possesses a hefty surplus of money, obtaining more money probably plays a smaller role in the overall motivation.

However, none of this means that it's generalizeable to say all working people are not primarily motivated by money (or are primarily motivated, for that matter). One could just as well argue the opposite: (for some people) money turns out to be really high on the list of things which motivates them. Whichever way, it still is weird to claim this as an absolute, applying to everyone.

To put this into a more concrete context: a C-suite executive of a Fortune 500 company might say "money is not my primary motivation, energizing coffee machine discussions, personal fulfillment, yada yada" -- they already are on a level with plenty of material wealth and opportunities for recreation. In contrast, a single parent sanitary worker is unlikely to claim motivation comes from "I'm energized by the interesting work tasks" or something else than money; certainly they are motivated by being able to pay rent and buy food for their children and would rather have more money than less.

[Lutger]

You see it a lot because there has been extensive empirical research that led to this conclusion, which does get summarized in discussions to a point where nuances have been lost. If you earn a really low wage, a little bit of extra money buys a lot of happiness. If you earn quite decent, there's a point it doesn't buy more happiness at all.

For C-suites I imagine money is more of a symbol for power and prestige, though I know little about it.

And yes, everybody is unique and all that, but also probably not as special as they like to think. Social research is never generalizable to a point where you can say: all people are like this or that, nor does it have to be to make an interesting point. I also didn't qualify the statement in that way, because I don't know the numbers by heart. But I remember reading from the actual research that there was a large difference in what motivates people (it was not equal as you seem the suggest) and salary was quite low on the list.

[zimbatm]

The C-suite probably does it more for power, influence, impact than the money. Of course it's nice to have some more money, but that's not going to meaninfully change your life at that point.

Of course if you don't have enough to live by, the main goal is going to be to earn more or just to survive

Past that, more money helps remove day-to-day problems in life, at various levels. But it becomes less important than other factors like having a healthy and meaningful life. I think it's assumed that the generalization applies to that level.

[Lutger]

Exactly, I tried to sneak in that nuance with 'if adequately compensated', but apparently it was not clear enough.

[ilyt]

Okay but coop also doesn't automatically mean your happiness in work will grew.

Some people will be perfectly happy working in a team with manager shielding them from most of the office politics vs pretty much having to take part in politics in coop

[Lutger]

Of course, a shitty coop is worse than a well managed corp. All I'm saying is that money isn't top priority for a lot of people.

[barry-cotter]

If this is true why do well paying companies have their pick of employees and less well paying ones have to take their left overs? I exaggerate for effect but most companies don’t have anything like an attractive mission so they need to compete on pay, somewhat on benefits, but overwhelmingly on pay.

Google and Goldman have no trouble hiring.

[jlokier]

The well paying companies have no trouble hiring someone good, but I wouldn't say they have "their pick" of employees. There are a lot of people out there who politely decline or ignore every approach from FAANG recruiters, for example, because the mission or company are unattractive and high pay doesn't make up for it.

So from a statistical perspective you can say that paying well means they have a lot of people to choose from. But some types of mission are greatly affected by the few particular people who are really specialised or inspired in some area or another, and those people aren't always willing to give up their personal dreams to work for an unattractive company just for a larger pay packet.

[OJFord]

People differ, not everyone wants to work there. Also Goldman & perhaps not Google but Amazon have infamously high churn - suggesting to me the money's not enough to stay (maybe could never be) vs. next best, so they move on now they have the badge for their CV.