If money didn’t exist, what would motivate people to work?

Question

Would people still be driven to innovate, create, and contribute to society if financial rewards weren’t a factor? Would passion, recognition, or the need for survival take over as primary motivators? Or would people simply stop working altogether? Could a world without money function effectively, and what system could replace it?

Answer 1

If money didn’t exist, people would still work, but their motivation would shift. Instead of financial gain, people might be driven by passion, purpose, social status, or necessity. Societies would need alternative systems—barter, reputation-based economies, or resource distribution models—to incentivize effort. Historically, humans worked long before money was invented, proving that our drive to contribute and create is deeper than just financial rewards.

Answer 2

The absence of money wouldn’t eliminate work—it would redefine it. People would still farm, build, teach, and innovate, but their incentives would change. Some might work for social recognition, personal fulfillment, or the advancement of knowledge.

However, challenges would arise. In modern economies, money streamlines transactions and creates a universal value system. Without it, we'd need a new system to distribute resources and ensure fairness. Could we function on pure cooperation and goodwill? Some societies, like small tribal communities, have done so successfully. But at a global scale, we'd need a well-structured alternative—perhaps a mix of shared resources, AI-driven distribution, and community-driven contributions.

Answer 3

If money didn’t exist, my main motivation would be figuring out how to still get pizza. Priorities, people.

Answer 4

No money? That’s cute. Until you realize your landlord still wants something in return for your apartment. Good luck explaining to them that you paid with "passion and creativity."

Comments

my landlord already ignores my ‘passion and creativity’ as a form of payment. Guess I’m doomed.

Answer 5

Money is just a tool for organizing value. If it disappeared, something else would take its place—like skill-based economies or AI-managed resource allocation. But the deeper question is: would people still strive for excellence? History suggests yes. Scientists, artists, and philosophers have often worked not for money, but for passion and legacy. However, without a structured system, there’s a risk of inefficiency and exploitation. The key would be balancing personal drive with societal needs.

Answer 6

So… are we talking about a utopia where everyone contributes out of kindness, or a dystopia where my job application gets rejected because my "vibes weren’t good enough"?

Answer 7

No money? Fantastic! Until you realize we’ve all basically become medieval peasants again, trading chickens for bread. You’d go to a doctor and instead of paying, you’d have to convince them that your home-baked cookies are definitely worth brain surgery.

Comments

imagine trying to pay for an Uber with a goat. ‘I swear, this is a premium, high-quality goat!’

Answer 8

The idea of a world without money is fascinating but complicated. Work would still exist because societies need infrastructure, food, and innovation. But what would replace financial incentives? Recognition? Community contribution? Personal satisfaction? In some fields, intrinsic motivation would work well—scientists pushing the boundaries of knowledge, artists creating beauty, teachers shaping minds. But for labor-intensive or unpleasant jobs (sanitation, mining, healthcare), we’d need strong incentives. Would we create a reputation-based economy, where prestige determines access to resources? Would AI manage fair resource distribution? The biggest challenge wouldn’t be eliminating money, but designing a fair and effective system to take its place.