If You Pay Peanuts, Do You Really Get Monkeys?
January 25, 2025
You’ve probably heard the saying, “If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.” Recently, I came across an interesting twist on this phrase. The wealthiest man in China reportedly remarked: “If you offer a monkey a choice between bananas and money, the monkey will choose bananas because it doesn’t realize it can buy more bananas with the money.”
While that’s an amusing metaphor, let’s not forget the practical reality: money can’t replace essentials. If there’s no food available, money won’t keep you alive. But let’s go back to the peanuts for a moment.
This saying often justifies high salaries, arguing that offering more money will attract the best talent. Sounds logical, right? But does it hold up in practice?
Once upon a time, being a member of parliament was an honor role. Only people who had their private affairs in order—those who had the time and intrinsic motivation to serve—entered politics. Fast-forward to today: being a parliamentarian has become one of the highest-paid jobs in Curaçao, yet the level of politics has sunk to unprecedented lows.
Instead of attracting capable and dedicated individuals, higher salaries have drawn opportunists with questionable intentions. Those who genuinely have their affairs in order and can make meaningful contributions tend to stay far away from politics, with few exceptions. So, the reality often feels closer to this twist on the saying: “If you pay money, you get monkeys.”
Given this context, there’s a compelling argument for reducing parliamentarians’ salaries. By lowering financial incentives, perhaps the role could attract people driven by a genuine desire to serve rather than a thirst for personal gain.
The “peanuts versus monkeys” argument isn’t limited to politics. It’s also used to justify exorbitant pay for medical specialists. The assumption is that we’ll get the best experts if we pay millions. But is that really true? Experts in reward systems, such as Wawoe, argue that money ceases to be an effective motivator beyond a certain point.
We’ve built a society where everything revolves around money, sidelining intrinsic motivation—the desire to do meaningful work, serve others, and contribute to the greater good. This approach may secure higher salaries, but it doesn’t lead to greater happiness or better outcomes.
When we prioritize financial incentives over intrinsic motivation, we risk creating a society where people act out of self-interest rather than a desire to serve. This doesn’t just erode trust; it undermines the very fabric of our communities.
Money alone cannot buy excellence, integrity, or dedication. It’s time we rethink the systems we’ve built and focus on fostering values beyond financial rewards.
If money solved all problems, we’d already live in a utopia. But the reality is far from that. Whether in politics, healthcare, or any other sector, we must recognize that intrinsic motivation often out-weighs financial incentives in driving meaningful contributions.
So perhaps the question isn’t about how much we pay but why. Are we rewarding the correct values? Are we incentivizing the right behaviors? If not, it’s time to change the rules. After all, paying more won’t guarantee better results—it might just attract bigger monkeys.
Miguel Goede
Comments