My wife is a creative worker. For several years we lived in poverty while she tried to be creative. It was frustrating because she had these artistic ambitions but couldn’t really use them. Why? She had to have to work a job where she could make real money so that we could pay our bills (of course, I work too. Just putting that there.).

A few years ago she started work at a large and well known company working in the President’s office as an administrative assistant. Fortunately, he saw that she was misplaced here and that she really ought to be working in the creative department for his company. So, promote and move. More money coming in at home meant less stress and time to focus on projects and practicing the crafts that she was already pretty good at.

Then she promoted again, still more money coming in, now she has an administrative assistant of her own. Her art work has improved greatly because she isn’t as worried about other things. She has people to take care of all the busy work, she can focus more on making the art happen… some of which includes taking time off from the office and enjoying life (vacations!).

Her partner in the company is different though. He started out as a really good artist, but the more money he makes, the less productive he becomes…

So I don’t know that there is a final answer here, though, it can be said that money does stifle creativity in some ways. Neither of us have to be as creative as we used to be to solve daily problems that arise with lack of income, if something goes awry, hire somebody to fix it. If we lose the incomes we have, it will be interesting to see how we are able to cope with solving issues that were once easier to solve because we weren’t as dependent on money to do the work for us.

Awesome. Another good excuse to disenfranchise content creators (especially the really good ones) while maximally exploiting their work.

…for all the OVERPAID Silicon Valley workers! All those fat-cat tech millionaires and billionaires will now, no doubt donate the majority of their wealth to charity and accept drastic corporate pay cuts to immediately reap the benefits of better personal performance!

Hell, lets just mandate a national wealth cap for everyone whose job requires even the tiniest amount of “rudimentary cognitive skill”.

We’ll be out of this recession in no time!

This is all a very nice, Utipian, Star Trekkie type world you are proposing. And ive been trying to think of actual real examples of invention or innovation that is not financially motivated, there are some, yes, and alot in history, but things were simpler than, the cost of training, and equipment, and living is much higher now.

Sure, money is often not the ultimate incentive for creativity, or invention, or design.

After all, you’re referring to things like modern products, and things that we find value in. (latest mobile phones, high speed internet, high speed computers etc).

Sure, the GROUP of people who designed the CPU for you’re PC would no doubt love electronics and engineering, (lord knows I do).

And some of them, would most certainly have a strong personal interest in the subject, like a keep amateur. (I do). I will write software, and design electronics at home, in my spare time because it’s great fun to do.

But, going to work, is how I live, how I am able to retire and how im able to feed, house and support my family, and if im lucky enough I will have a wad of money in the bank for my family for when I kick it.

But if you have ever worked in a design house, or somewhere where creativity and invention is a requirement, you will know that no one walks around all day putting a money value on their work, or competing for more money.

They think about how to solve specific probems with the resources on hand. They think about the engineering and the product, not the bottom line, or their pay packet.

Their pay has been worked out well before hand, every week they get a cheque, pay their mortgage, save a bit, and go to work.

Rarly, very rarly will an engineer or scientist stop working in the field he loves if he gets that magical ‘enough money’. Money is not a demotivator, it is a motivator.

Speak to rich CEO’s or rich business people, they will clearly state they have more than enough money to live several lifetimes, but they still work !, they use money made as a guage of their success.

Same with engineers, and designers and scientists, money is not everything, but it allows you to have a house to stop you getting wet, a car to allow you to get to work, insurance, food and all the other things critical to invention and innovation.

Im sure, if engineers were always worrying about where their next meal is comeing from, or where they are going to sleep that night, they would be less concerned on how to make a smart work better.

Reverse the argument, look at countries what do not reward invention and innovation with money. Fixed income countries, im refering mainly to communist and socialist countries.

If this theory was correct, those states would be hives of invention and innovation in every area. They should be world leaders in nearly (if not) everything.

And the capitolist countries would be laggin behind, fill of fat rich highly skilled engineers, retired and watching TV.

But that actually does not seem to be the case does it ?

OK, dont believe me, of the top of you’re head name 5 large and successful high technology, innovative companies in the Eastern Block Countries ?

Even FOSS, free and open source, which tries to some degree to follow the ‘for the love of it’ mantra, is certain not an innovation minefield, it’s quite good at immitation but innovation,, no so much.
As well, all the ‘big players’ in the FOSS world are PAID!

One of the only organisations that I know of, and am a member of, is TAD. You might want to look at that organisation as an example of innovation for things other than financial.

TAD, Technical Aid for the Disabled, we invent, design and build specialised equipment to meet specific disabilities of people. It’s 100% volenteer, and it’s not done for self reward at all, it’s not done to increase you’re standing or name or to show off you’re skills.

It’s done for one purpose, to provide some equipment to make someone elses life easier. It’s 100% about them.

But without a paying job, and without millions of dollars training and education, and without some large organisation providing the facilities and equipment to allow me to do my job, and to design and invent things. It would not be possible.

Just as it would not be possible to use my spare time, creating and innovating products for people for free, if I had to worry about where my next meal is coming from, or how im going to pay for the electricity that is running my computers.

Sure, there are millions of people now ‘innovating’, with blogs and on the web, but it’s not really contributing anything greatly of value to society, and therefore the rewards for their work are comensurate.

Google, Email, the WWW, computers, electronics, the Transistor, CRT and computer monitor, mouse, keyboard, satellite phones, GPS, WiFi… the list is endless, or modern and significant innovations, all created for financial incentive, and by people highly skilled, trained and at a high monetry cost.

So for me, someone who has been in engineering, and science and electronics/computers all my life, it would not matter if I was earning 10 million a year or just enough to get by on, I would still love what I can do, and do it to the best of my ability regardless.

Very few if anyone I know would do otherwise, sure, if you are unlucky and hate you’re job, you might want to tell the boss to F*&^ YOU, and walk out the door.

But you find in the creative fields, money is not the prime motivator, but a guage of you’re perceived worth.
Therefore money is the reward and incentive to do better, be more productive and more skilled. And one follows the other.

The highly skilled, and experienced engineers get paid the most, they are the senior engineers, and the junors who are still learning, who are not as productive are paid less.

If a senior engineer, becomes less productive than the junor, then questions will be asked and eventually he will be sacked, or demoted.

But engineers rarly get worse, you learn more things and gain experience throught you’re career, you love what you do, so you would do it anyway, but you like everyone else likes to know you are valued, and you’re income is that indication.

If you are valued in a company, and you are able to support youre self and your family, then that is more than enough motivation to do their best.

Ive never met an engineer that does not want to do the very best they can, after all that is why they became an engineer, or some other creative field.

You think a painter will product a better or worse painting because of the potential financial rewards? I dont think so.

A painter, like an engineer, will do the best he/she can everytime, for their own gratification and rewards.

Sure, if you digging holes, or punching number plates, (manual labour) as you put it, you assume there is little or no pride or satisifaction from that.

Often that is true, the satisifaction those workers get is the money, the ability to support themselves and their family, to pay for kids education and so on, and even factory workers take pride in their work, and strive to do better, to enjoy what they do, to gain more from that work than just money.

Everyone does, it appears that only in those countries that do not focus on financial and living improvement for production and invention, are the countries that do not progress nearly as fast as those that do.

TAD – Technical Aid for the Disabled.

Volenteer group, what creates for the only reason to provide equipment or things to make people with a specific disabilities life better.

We do not chage for labour at all, and quite often source and purchase the raw materials and components ourselves.
Something we could not do if we did not have jobs and incomes.

So there are example of innovation and invention for non-money reason, and even non-selfish reasons, it’s all about helping others.

But it would not be possible without a strong economy and well paid people, with the spare money and time to dedicate to that work.
There still is no social model, where that ultrueistic system is or can be the ONLY system.

I think you can easily apply the concept of non-monetary rewards to most software engineers; however, some types of jobs require creativity, but most of the people who do those jobs seem to be completely driven by money.

If you want to destroy a company, for example, structure your sales peoples’ compensation plan accordingly. I’ve hired, fired and managed a lot of sale people. Most good ones will knowing sell something for $1 that costs the company $10 to make, as long as they get a commission for it. They won’t give a hoot if it kills the company.

I went to B-school with a lot of people would worked at, or went on to work at, Goldman Sachs, Lehman, and other Wall Street firms. They were generally very smart, creative and hyper-competitive. The majority were motivated principally by money, and were totally amoral about it.

Both sales people and Wall Streeters do jobs that often require creativity. In my experience, both groups are principally motivated by cash.