Week 6 Wall
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
Is economic behaviour universal? Do all people pursue their material self-interest all the time? Put another way, can you think of situations where a “backward sloping supply curve” would explain your behaviour?
Vinciane Boisson, 
amrita, and 12 others are discussing.
liorbarel 7:17 pm on October 8, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Economic behaviour is not universal. Different societies with differering economic cultures and values in relation to what is important engender people who have different economic behaviours from those in other societies. Furthermore, while generalizations can often be made about societal economic behaviour, individuals within each society often have different economic behaviours from what is expected of them, and from what they grew up with. A relevant modern example of this is the changing economic culture of Sweden, from a pseudo-socialist welfare state to a neo-liberal capitalist one. Those economic cultures, while very different from each other, were both put into place by government elected by people – which means that the opinions with regards to economics within Sweden have changed. (One might argue that both systems were created in order to maximize self-interest, but I would argue that the former system was created to pursue societal self-interest, with the self-benefit following from that.) Also, on an individual level, people act out of non-self interest every day, when they help someone with homework or with getting a job, etc. (again, one can argue that these actions can be done out of self-interest, but I believe that self-interest is most often not the motivating factor, and therefore not the reason for the action.)
An example of a backward sloping supply curve in my life would be summer camp. As a camper, there is no material benefit from attending summer camp. Furthermore, as a counselor, I am paid very little, yet I have worked for both of the past two summers where being a counselor was available to me – at the opportunity cost of finding a job that is better paying, and therefore more materially beneficial. I think that in general, non-material self-interest comes from two places, both of which I would say apply to me: from a non-material self-interest, like making friends and learning; and from a material or non-material interest in something “greater” than oneself (i.e. the collective, the group, the organization, etc.).
amandawoodland 12:15 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do not believe that economic behaviour, when described in terms of the pursuit of material self-interest at all times, is universal. While it is not controversial to suggest that groups of people must pursue their own interests in certain ways at certain times (for the purposes of survival and health, or simply for comfort, security, and pleasure), to suggest that people pursue their material self-interest all the time would be too strong an argument. There are plenty of counterexamples to suggest otherwise. These can be found on both a group and individual level. One notable example of someone who consistently put herself at the service of others was Mother Theresa, who, despite numerous health issues, personal conflicts of faith, and other hardships dedicated the majority of her life to helping others in need. This kind of behaviour (in varying extremes) can be seen within certain religious groups in which people forgo material luxuries and dedicate their own lives to supporting greater purposes than their own. It could, of course, be argued that these people must emotionally or spiritually benefit from their service to others; however, I do not consider this self-interest to count as economic behaviour by which they are seeking to advance their material interest. In terms of a backward sloping supply curve, I think that there are certainly times in people’s lives when this description can be applied to their behaviour, especially as described by the example of a worker choosing to replace hours of work with more leisure time. Yet this does not seem to advance the worker’s own material self-interest so much as it is does help him gain comfort/happiness through other means. What I would truly consider acting out of material self-interest would be finding an even higher paying job and working more hours in order to make money that can be spent on luxury items.
jpellegrino 4:14 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do not think economic behavior is universal. I strongly believe that depending on how or where someone was raised, one might be more inclined to pursue their material self-interest than others. For example, if a child were raised in Los Angeles by a wealthy, affluent, material seeking parent, I would assume that this child would grow up more predisposed to pursue material things. I say this because both, the way in which the child was probably brought up mixed with the type of society he or she occupies makes for a perfect economically, self-interested individual. Unfortunately, I must generalize using this example. On the other hand, if a child we raised in the small town of Spence’s Bridge, British Columbia and were raised in a modest home, struggling to make ends meet, I think this child would be less inclined to pursue material self-interest because he or she was probably taught to appreciate what little they have. While I say that not everyone in the world is self-interested, I believe that you could, in another light say that everyone has an instinctive right to pursue the necessities of life in order to sustain themselves. However, in looking at this, it is safe to say in order to sustain one’s life, materials are needed. Thus, is it appropriate to assume that even the homeless in the downtown Eastside of Vancouver are also inclined to pursue their material self-interest because they are trying to live for tomorrow?
tazizi 4:15 pm on October 9, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, economic behaviour is not universal, especially when it is described as the personal need to always pursue material self-interest. It appears that as a whole, industrialized societies have adopted this economic behaviour and consumerism as a way of life, but that’s not the case for all people or societies. If a society does not have their basic physiological needs, such as food, sleep and clean water, I doubt the people of that society would be immersed in economic behaviour and have need to pursue material self-interest. In addition, economic behaviour only plays a significant part of someone’s life if material items are what are valued in their society. Some cultures, societies or tribes do not place importance on physical material but rather spiritual growth or helping others. Also, one can argue that true altruism (if that does indeed exist) would promote a person to have selfless concern for others and not be concerned with materialism. Both Ghandi and Mother Teresa have seemed to demonstrate this. Of course some people would debate there is no true altruism, as everyone is trying to help themselves in some way. Another example is the Aboriginal potlatch. While the practice was used for elevating status, the Aboriginal tribes did not necessarily pursue their material self-interest as they would often give their best items away. Doing some research on the “backward sloping supply curve,” in labour terms, it would appear that a higher wage means workers can reach their target income by working fewer hours; so, because it is easier to get enough money they work less.
karinbjorkdahl 8:41 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There is no universal economic behaviour. I believe that the economical behaviour is strongly connected with culture. Western societies is a consumer society and wealth gives you a higher social status so I believe that you even can say that people tend to develop greed in some extent in western societies. And it’s very much focus on material things, or it has been so for a long period of time. However, I do believe that things are changing a bit. Today, there are some tendencies towards another direction. Family, travelling, quality time and well being in general is the new “thing”. I believe that this trend actually will change prioritising people have today.
But there still is this problem that you can’t get around. For travelling, quality time etc. you do need money. Of course it differs depending on what you want to do but the more money you have the more you can travel and the destinations increases when the wallet is thicker. I read an article not long ago saying that money won’t make you happy, BUT the happiness is easier to access with money. Unfortunately I think that that actually is true. And as long as that is the case this economical behaviour will exist, at least in the western societies.
ecopeland 11:09 pm on October 10, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Economic behaviour could be qualified as universal when looked at on a world-market scale. Globalisation has ensured that for most transnational businesses to succeed they will run on according to certain well defined, well practiced behaviours (economic theories) e.g. profit margins go up when labor costs go down.
On a personal scale, economic behaviour may and may not qualify as universal. What a single male does with his per-annum earnings will differ significantly to the way two adults with three children will use their hourly-wage earnings. However given that, without thorough study, I could presume that the out of 100 single men the majority will spend their money in the same practice and the same for family units- this shows that economic behaviour for both groups is universal, but only with units alike.
The ‘backward bending supply curve’ applies to labor supply and wages, e.g skilled labourers that employers want to entice with higher wage. This theory is based on the premise that wages over a certain level will result in a universal economic behaviour; that workers will work less because the time they spend not working is compensated by a higher wage in their working hours. Leisure time is increased and as a result the worker feels less drawn to increase their working hours. The employer sees little improvement in labor supply and employee spends their wages at the same or even higher rate than before the pay rise.
tyler5 1:00 am on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I believe that a very basic level, the majority of people follow a set of fundamental economic laws. For example, laws of scarcity and opportunity costs are seen in everyday decisions. However, when it comes to material self-interest, it’s impossible to say that people act in a strictly universal manner. In the context of this week, the economic action shown by the Indians shows that even people thought of as backwards savages, were practicing universal laws of economics. Now, this in mind, to say that all people pursue this action all the time is incorrect. One can’t make the assumption that everyone on earth acts in the exact same way economically. To illustrate this principle, one can look at a backwards sloping supply curve; or in other words, something breaking a basic economic law. An example of a backward sloping supply curve would be something of limited exclusivity. For example, top end sports cars. A company, as the price and value of their car grew, would produce less due to an increase in status. In turn, creating a cycle of increased demand due to a status effect. Therefore, the value would increase even further, driving up the price with it.
lindswong 12:02 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In my opinion economic behaviour is dependent on country and therefore, culture. Some countries’ economic behaviour are similar if not near identical due to the physical proximity of particular countries resulting in similar cultures or simply due to the close economic relations between certain countries. For example, generally first world countries, such as China, the States, Britain and Canada, have close economic ties and economy is based on a consumerist society. Therefore in countries such as these, people generally tend to pursue their own material self-interest because the mentality in these countries is very much focused in making the best life for oneself and taking advantage of every opportunity. However, in other countries, such as developing nations, they don’t enjoy all the luxuries that the developed countries do. Therefore, their economic behaviour will be different and possibly not as focused on the pursuing of material self-interest.
The concept of a backward sloping supply curve does not well apply to me. As in the definition the idea is that, for example, a person who gets a pay increase would be able to obtain the same equivalent amount through working less, therefore it seems likely the person would work less. However, my mentality is very much that I would work just as much or more in order to earn just that much more than before. This is in the case when profit is involved, however, but for example in high school when I volunteered I would give the minimum amount of hours in order to meet the quota needed to graduate. So, in some volunteer positions I would have to volunteer about 2 hours once per week in order for me to obtain the hours I need. One volunteer position, however, would round up a few hours in order to help us meet our quota faster, therefore, I could volunteer less and still meet my quota. This behaviour depicted here is a good example of the type of economic behaviour generally present in developed countries where a backward sloping supply curve would be expected to happen, yet this is by no means a universal behaviour.
lsmack 1:27 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In today’s day, all countries and people would be involved in economic behaviours. Countries are importing and exporting trade goods to and from outside their country. They are trading to improve their status at the world scale. People are taught they need to work to pay for their basic needs. Some people even work more to gain more materialistic items they want. The elite people of social class are pursuing their self-interest all the time. They work strictly for money. Money is first and foremost while their families are second in terms of values. The lower class are not so lucky. They work at minimum wage to make ends meet and to survive.
The “backward sloping supply curve” idea is new but the one thing that I can make a connection to this is poker. Some guys are playing every hand to keep their head above water. They are constantly betting and calling but sometimes losing to better hands, therefor having to start from the bottom again. When they lose so many chips, they become selective of choosing their hands. They don’t make the right decisions, meaning the flop could go their way but they folded. Then you have the guys who have luck and win the one big pot, making them the chip leader. when they are chip leader, they can choose and pick which hands to play and muck. sometimes, they just sit there and wait until the blinds are high enought to jump into the action.
aviaah 2:12 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Economic behaviour is indeed universal, for as long as there is some monetary form and value, people will subconsciously follow economic rules. Economy is essentially a global enterprise, and does not only deal with the individual or a single society, but is characterized by the interconnection between state economies that rely on each other.
Economic behaviour as we see it so far is based on how people have acted thus far. People will always pursue their self-interest, for they want to better their condition and their lives. Whether that is material or immaterialistic is debatable, but again, monetary forms help make that decision and transition. The amount of fiscal goods you have will, of course, limit and define your self-interest. My example of this lies with the idea of the “backwards sloping supply curve”. Say that it is in your self-interest to go to University. But if the price to attend increases, it will naturally become more selective and exclusive. If the price rises up to a certain extent, it may be in your self-interest to not go to University for the time being, and instead get a job in order to attain other things that would serve to be in your interest. This is also a matter of opportunity cost, if one were to delve into the topic further.
jenniferbishop 3:14 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
No, economic behavior is not always universal. I think it greatly has to do with how you were raised. There are a couple different options for how you were raised will affect your economic behavior. One option is lets say you were born and raised in the Upper Eastside of New York, you have been raised with lots of money so material objects are of importance to you. If someone raised in the Upper Eastside was in this situation and offered a higher wage, they would mostly likely continue to work the same amount of hours. If you compare this to the backward sloping supply curve, this person does not follow the backward sloping supply curve and take more leisure time. They wouldn’t take the leisure time because they have been raised in an environment where earning more money is most important. However on the other hand take some one raised in a very family orientated environment, and is offered a higher wage would follow the backward sloping supply curve. They would choose to work less and spend the extra leisure time with their family as long as all of their basic needs were covered; this is because family is most important to them. In conclusion, someone’s economic behavior can be determined by their values: for example family or money.
chliane 3:16 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do not believe economic self interest is universal. Economic behaviour is how people act and make decisions in economics. Every society has their way of dealing with economics, and it is not necessarily in a self interested manner. Particularly with the natives, who appear to be more concerned with keeping the land and preserving their way of life than exchanging it for profit. We learned in the lectures that when given better offers for their furs, the natives would provide fewer furs to trade. This flies in the face of all that we understand to be modern economics. Clearly they were not acting in self interest in this early trading economy.
Their actions follow the backward sloping supply curve, but I do not believe the graph explains their motives. This figure explains the phenomenon where workers will eventually begin to work less after a certain point in rise of wages is reached. This is fairly self-explanatory, as having higher wages means less work needs to be done to acquire more money. In the case of trading goods however, the trend is often to acquire as much as you can. It is not until a person is so incredibly ‘saturated’ with material goods that they are satisfied, and will slow their intake of goods. In the case of the natives, they could have gained so much more for very little effort on their part, but as it was mentioned in the readings, they traded mainly for need, and were satisfied not because they had all they wanted, but because they had all they needed. This is a very different economic that we see almost anywhere else.
amrita 3:27 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
In terms of pursuing material self-interest, I doubt and disagree that economic behaviour is universal, as there are many indigenous cultures in the world who focus on the well-being of the society before they act out of their own self-interests. Yet I do agree that economic behaviour in the form of trading of items to obtain items is universal. For instance, there are cultures which exchange animals in order to trade their daughter or perhaps to gain land. Others exchange jewelry to obtain other materials they desire.
Asking if all people pursue material self-interest all the time rings a clear answer in my mind, and that would be a definite “no.” Of course, many people pursue material self-interest some or most of the time; for example we go to work to earn money so that we may obtain and buy material items only we desire, but saying all people all of the time is a bit of an obvious exaggeration.
In relation to the course, it is possible that the indigenous people, as the formalists say, were motivated by their own material self-interest to gain materials they may not have been able to utilize without participating in the fur trade. Seen at another angle, however, we could also say that the indigenous peoples participated not out of their own material self-interest, but for other altruistic reasons because generosity and helpfulness was a large of their culture.
Vinciane Boisson 4:40 pm on October 11, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do not believe economic behaviour to be universal. It is based on politics and economics – for example, it is generally held true that a capitalist environment allows for a strong need for material self-interest. If we consider this week’s tutorial reading, this may not have been the case at all for some Native tribes. History of economics and politics also plays an important role, in that if the features of economics or politics change, the behaviour of people concerned by these changes will not change in the short term.
I think nowadays all people pursue their material self-interest all the time, albeit at different levels and to different extent. Poor people aspire for a greater wealth (I know “all you need is love”, but being able to eat every day has its perks too), and middle-class or rich people aspire to maintain their wealth, if not increase it. Except for potential still existing Indigenous peoples in the world (though, from what I gathered, many come to understand the importance money and material possessions have in industrial societies), everyone has to pursue material wealth in order to survive, or live. What changes it the ratio people applies to their pursuit of wealth and their social life and hobbies, or the importance they put on volunteering and similar activities.
I cannot think of any instances of my life when there has been a “backward-sloping supply curve” situation, as I never found myself in the position to earn enough money to be able to cut back work hours in favour of leisure time.
Tina Loo 12:49 pm on October 13, 2013 Permalink | Log in to Reply
General Comments on Week 6:
What struck me about your blogs this week is that almost everyone was at pains to be very careful about generalizing about human behaviour! That’s great. Historians are always suspicious when people make an argument about universal behaviour. After all, historians are in the business of looking for change over time and space….
It would be hard to believe that economic behaviour is universal; i.e. that all humans all the time in all places pursue their material self interest (=economic behaviour, = rational behaviour). Even within one time and place it doesn’t seem universal. Many of you gave me an example of how your behaviour matched the backwards sloping supply curve – so clearly there were moments in your lives where you didn’t pursue the bottom line, when you didn’t keep going after the $$. So…is economic behaviour really universal?
Also, a couple of you talked about other instances of seemingly non-economic behaviour; namely altruism (though some of you said we “get” something out of being altruistic!) and (in another tutorial) art. One of you talked about how many musicians, and I’d add, other artists often labour for years and years without making any money – in fact, they continue to do so knowing they won’t make a living from it. if they were really motivated out of economic self interest wouldn’t they give up and do something that paid better?