The point I make is that industry, if it is to keep abreast of its responsibilities to the Nation, must have a great number of first-class minds at its disposal. It must compete for them with all other phases of our society, for there are never enough to go around. The fields of government, education, the military, the arts, the professions, all are seeking to persuade able young men to cast their lot with them. Each has its own type of incentive to offer, and the demand for talent always exceeds the supply.
Adequate incentives, of course, differ with different people. Some are attracted most strongly by the promise of prestige. Some are more interested in leisure time, to follow scholarly pursuits or perhaps simply to meditate upon the ills of the world. To some people, public notice or outward signs of rank and importance are alluring goals. Some seek power. For most, however, the strongest and probably the most desirable incentive is financial reward. Furthermore, financial reward is not only an incentive in itself; it is the only fluid medium that can be used to balance the attractions of the more intangible compensations, such as prestige, power, or public notice.
There is another aspect of the monetary incentive that seems to me worthy of comment. It is the only reward that can be cut down on a basis of fixed percentages. We do not, for example, withhold 91 percent of an Oscar going to the best moving-picture actress of the year. The winner of a Nobel prize does not have to give the Government a certain percentage of the prestige accruing to him. A brilliant violinist does not have to share his applause with the collector of internal revenue. These il
lustrations may seem facetious, yet they are based on a serious foundation, for we do in fact make the recipient of monetary rewards, and him alone, give up significant percentages in taxes. We are, that is, penalizing only one manifestation of success, and this seems to me, frankly, not only unfair but, for the future, a dangerous practice.
I do not propose to debate the relative nobility of these various carrots that are held out before us human donkeys for that seems to me to make little difference so long as there is one toward which we will stretch. I see no reason, however, to believe that financial gain is any less worthy than prestige or recognition, and it is certainly less stultifying than the lust for power or mere social preening. It is, also, the incentive that American industry has historically used.
This is largely because it is the type of inducement most consistent with the business environment. In other fields, tangible and intangible incentives have been developed over the years, each more or less characteristic of its own activity. In the academic world, for example, professional prestige and personal recognition have a certain magnetism that attract gifted minds even though the financial remuneration is unjustifiably low.
The world of politics affords an opportunity for public service and public attention which, to some people, is highly attractive. In the arts and the theater, one has the goal of fame and the limelight. In pure science there is the distinction that goes with the highest awards such as the Nobel prize. In the Army, Navy, and Air Force, incentive to move up through the various echelons of command is based on rank and perquisites; even the church has its hierarchies and various symbolic tokens of achievement.
Business, for the most part, is in a poor position to compete in these intangible areas. With few exceptions executives of great ability remain relatively unknown. A player of even minor roles in the films, a leader of a jazz orchestra, or a writer of only average accomplishment may be far better known than many leaders of industry. For businessmen there are few medals, prizes, degrees, uniforms, patriotic citations, or grandiose honorifics. There are few featured players on the industrial stage.