Creepy Condescending Wonka

What was the rent on a cave back then?

Depends on how many bears are included.

OK. What was the rent on a cave with zero bears back then?

Depends on whether it is furnished with cave paintings.

Alright, what was the rent on a fully furnished cave with no bears decorated with historic frescos by the up and comic artists of their day?

*up and coming

During or after the ice age?

After.

Depends on the location. E.g. Would you like your cave on or off the Wooly Mammoth trail?

I'm going to speed this up just a nooch: describe a cave in the caveman era where the rent was anything higher than zero dollars on local exchange rates.

Point taken! The post ice age cave market was pretty brutal, but I heard from a friend of a friend that her friend was able to get a spacious, Oceanside grotto for only ten arrowheads and a sabretooth necklace! The only catch is that the previous owners were giant sloths. They left the place a mess.

Aye, but utility bills wouldn't have been included.

Humans work if they got something to gain from it. Money is a shortcut, but most jobs today don´t gain you anything other than Money.
So Society that has no Motivator for work is falling apart.

An experiment was done in the sixties that offered a group of college students money to solve a puzzle and another group was asked to solve the puzzle without compensation. During the experiment the students were offered a break. The group that was offered money took the break, the other group did not (they continued to work on the puzzle during the break). This experiment has been repeated at least twice since then, with similar results. It demonstrates that people have an intrinsic desire to do work and that money appears to pervert our natural desire to do work, probably by giving us a false sense of entitlement to compensation.

And people that need to eat work harder than people that have their foodscource sorted out.

The experiment did not give the other group without money any other value than solving the puzzle. If they gave them free food during the break they would have taken it. Without another sense of compensation the accomplishment becomes reward in itself.

But that does not sort out the problem of getting people specialised in fields as we need them to be.

"Nice of you to say that my tables are the best, but if I don't bring in the harvest my family starves" compensation compensates for the work you don't do. Not the work you do.

Exactly! When a reward (e.g. money, food) is not involved, the sense of accomplishment is its own reward. But when a reward is introduced, the sense of accomplishment is denigrated and a new standard of "value" is perceived by the participants.

P.S. I have no quarrel with the division of labor.

The division of labor has it own problems.
Solving a puzzle is reward in itself.
Solving the same puzzle for other people is no reward and sometimes punishment in itself.

Without external reward the labor is hard to maintain. Slavery gets around this problem in the opposite way making the punishment worse than the work.

I prefer positiv enforcement over negativ

Yes, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement (a.k.a. punishment), are types of persuasion. An example of positive reinforcement would be giving a person food or money to do something you want them to do - that is the basis of capitalism, and as you indicated, negative reinforcement is the basis of slavery. However, there is an increasing movement of people suggesting that we should alter this paradigm - and perhaps, move toward an economy that is not based on positive or negative reinforcement, but one that is based on the shared gains of the entire community - this is often referred to as communism or socialism.

To clarify, communism and socialism are based on the idea that the benefits of work are not directly attributed to the worker, but are instead distributed throughout the population. This provides an incentive to each worker in the sense that their own well-being is linked to the well-being of the community.

Of course this creates an incentive to work, but because that incentive is so diffuse, the problem of monetary perversion would not likely be an issue.

The base for capitalism is "what do i have and what do i need"

The base for socialism "what can i give the cmmunity that provides for me"

Even the most pro socialism person I have meet thinks in the former not in the later way. But hey maybe the younger Generation actually did develop into the mindset.

But i am yet to see one.

I agree. Socialism is probably just a pipe dream that humans will never be able to achieve.

But shouldn't we try?

But don't we require an objective standard for quantifying work in an organized society?

Certainly! But letting the free-market decide what that standard should be is like letting a tribe of monkeys decide how many bananas their enemies should have.