Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Steve Santos' questions on inducements (Nov 11th, 2:45 Class)
steve santos

Steve Santos' questions on inducements (Nov 11th, 2:45 Class) - 32 views

inducements discussion

started by steve santos on 10 Nov 11
  • steve santos
    #1 steve santos on 10 Nov 11
     
    1) Consider the nature of Jay Z's approach to managing his persona and his subtle influence in handling the challengers in the hip hop/rap industry.

    From a policy standpoint, how is it that this may be registered to the people were it a political debate between candidates? and in regards to our modern issues of war and the economy, what combination of pacifism and relentlessness would be favored between handling enemies and then the people governed/influenced?

    2) Now think about Dan Pink's video and how money was viewed negatively as a motivator, but as an inducement it was beneficial. what draws the line between the two and how might that be present in our modern issues today?
  • Felecia Russell
    #2 Felecia Russell on 11 Nov 11
     
    The line is obvious, it is helping, that it is why it is considered benefial. It is present in our modern issues today because the big CEO's and CFO's who have all the money are preceived as bad people(not in the sense of actions, but motives and achievement). However, we have medicare, medicaid, welfare and all other programs that help people. Celebrities who are campaigning to raise their taxes are looked at as "good." Yet, these same celebrities are in the top one percent, Bill Gates, Russell Simmons, and Jay z. So how do we decide what is negative and what is positive? Simply, becasue rewards by nature narrrow our minds and narrow our focus(Dan Pink's video). Money is negative if its not creative! Money that produces solutions is beneficial.
  • magen sanders
    #3 magen sanders on 11 Nov 11
     
    in relation to our own economy and modern society we have to be relentless and active and we cannot simply stand back and let things blow over or ignore problems or strict situations such as our economic issues or previous issues on war and terrorism, certian situations call for an active and relentless point of view, however this aggressive tactic shouldnt not be used on a constant basis and we should definitely take a step back and let things unfold and blow over jst as Jay-z did with other rappers that are "hating"
  • Matt Nolan
    #4 Matt Nolan on 11 Nov 11
     
    I agree with what Magen said, we cannot stand back and let the problems in our economy build up, we have to be active, there are certain times that call for us to bite our tongue and stand back. That is why Jay-Z is where he is, and that is why he leads the life he does. He is a smart man and knows when to speak his voice, the people that he has met and has surrounded himself with reflects why he so successful while The Game is "hating" on Jay-Z from where he is sitting. Which is not anywhere close to the level of success Jay-Z has made in the rap industry.
  • Matt Nolan
    #5 Matt Nolan on 11 Nov 11
     
    The people that you surround yourself with shape who you will become, and that is why Jay-Z has become an icon and has forever changed the rap industry.
  • Joshua Gray
    #6 Joshua Gray on 11 Nov 11
     
    I believe for the policy side that a mixture is required for anything positive to come out of it. When you talk about relentless effort on it, it seems to me thats what a lot of the partisanship is in U.S. politics right now. Both sides attempting to show they know excatly what will work by being entirely adamant in your own position. Just like about the Jay-Z issue his career turned out for the better when he eventually stopped attempting to attack people and chose to come to a compromise and work with former advesaries that benefitted them both. I believe that approach is what would work best in dealing with issues on war and the economy. Republicans, Democrats and etc. all need to clairfy their positions and what they believe and then get over themselves and work for a middle ground rather than pleasing their base. I would be happy if someone in federal politics (say the president, since neither minority or majority will compromise) right now took the role of accepting both opinions but then working for the middle ground and when that occurs both sides are going to benefit by saving face with their base and also fianlly coming to an agreeable solution that will hopefully solve our current issues.
  • Jonathan Omokawa
    #7 Jonathan Omokawa on 11 Nov 11
     
    I am leaning towards agreeing with what Josh said. When dealing with our political parties when you have two alpha dogs fighting for the lead, nothing gets done. You get a lot of frustrated citizens who don't really have a better solution but are angry at the system. I am not saying that our government should be run like Jay-Z ran his career, because our government is not a business, but we need to find a middle ground on our issues. We are obviously not going to be able to find an answer with all the bickering between two parties, especially when they are on two opposite extremes from each other.
  • anonymous
    #8 anonymous on 11 Nov 11
     
    Josh said it best. I feel that the two-party system we're looking at today will soon deteriorate because neither the democrats nor the republicans have all the answers, but both groups are too proud and unflexible to compromise or consider other solutions. To go off what Jonathan said, our government may not be a business, but many people think it should be run as one especially in today's economy. Mitt Romney is currently the top Republican candidate, and many people think this is because he is a businessman and will have a better shot at turning this country around if he has experience in the areas in which our country faces a current dire weakness.
  • Melissa Moreno
    #9 Melissa Moreno on 11 Nov 11
     
    I agree with Jonathan about the alpha dogs. Not a lot gets done when two figure heads are going at each other's throats. The important thing about Jay-Z's career is that he knows when to let things go and when he needs to fight and defend his career and those close to him and the things he believes in. This is something he has learned over his long seasoned career. Obviously as a eager young man he was not always prone to letting the little things roll off his back but today in politics that is the key that politicians need to remember. It is not about the ego or the status it is about getting what needs to be done done. Our government system is not a business and running it as one may not be the best idea. However the parties need to find common ground and stand firm on their beliefs but not so firm that we are at a stalemate in politics.
  • nsamuelian
    #10 nsamuelian on 11 Nov 11
     
    I agree with Magen and Matt. If there are problems in our economy we can't just stand around, let them rise and build up. Then we'll just have a big mess. People get to certain levels of perfection, excellence, achievement, and success because of their smart stance in these kind of beings.
  • Sarah McKee
    #11 Sarah McKee on 11 Nov 11
     
    Both of these questions have a sort of middle ground to them. In the case of Jay Z and his tactics, sitting back is good in a lot of situations but not all. That is not always the best solution but it's important to remember that it can be a solution. Sometimes we see a problem and just keep throwing things at it. Maybe if we spend more money, do more research, send more troops, etc that will fix the problem. But sometimes the problem can be caused or made worse by too much action. Sometimes sitting back is the right idea. People have already given examples like the economy and war and terrorism. It's a situation by situation thing, there is no one way to fix problems.
    In the case of the incentives, he did say that incentives could be used for cases but that was a limited number, mechanical only tasks, for everything else we should steer away from the "carrot and the stick." The best solution is one that was discovered by looking at all angles, not just sticking to one way of thinking.
  • Valencia Hamilto
    #12 Valencia Hamilto on 11 Nov 11
     
    I also agree with Josh. In politics they are so busy trying to debate against one another and put each other down nothing ever gets accomplished. so i feel like if they just focus on making a mutual compromise things will get done a lot more efficiently .
  • Mark Drach-Meinel
    #13 Mark Drach-Meinel on 13 Nov 11
     
    On the subject of the TED video, I wasn't surprised about how intrinsic motivations beat monetary motivations. However; I was very surprised to learn how much better it is to have money as an inducement. The motivation should be intrinsic with money as just an inducement. The difference between motivation and inducement is that the motivation is the main persuader in whether or not someone wants to do something. The extra money is there just to help and I think more businesses and jobs need to try and run this model for getting hard working employees.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the contemporary issues in public policy group