The Myth of Scarcity & Wage Equality + Motivation

[Pogue]

Move to learning if you feel it appropriate please.

Basically, are there any statistics or general theories/ideas that put to death the idea of scarcity, and make it clear that if things were organised collectively in an egalitarian and democratic society, it would be possible for wage equality because everyone would get enough to 'motivate them to work', as we so often hear?

Are there any comrades who oppose the idea of wage equality as a immediate revolutionary period or post-revolutionary principle? Are there any comrades who thinks its impossible until communist society 'develops'? Are there any comrades who believe wage inequality is neccesary to motivate people or reward people for what are termed the 'hardest jobs'.

I ask because I'm getting very annoyed with being hit with the old "So you think that a doctor should be paid the same as a street cleaner!!?!?!" bollocks everytime I talk about communism, and because I flirted with the idea of a transitionary stage where there is not total wage equality in an attempt to solve this problem of 'motivation' and 'more deserving workers' (not something i believ ein but something many people seem to believe in which I tried to find an answer too.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well put it this way imagine your living in a communist society and somone offers you the job of a doctor or street cleaner (presuming you are able to do both) which one you going to do. If i did not suck so much at biology and the like i would study to be a doctor even though a job as a cleaner would pay the same.

Besides if their were no cleaners then what? People would die and then we would need alot more doctors.

[Pogue]

I know that but that doesnt convince people, I need really well developed arguments with material evidence.

[casper]

you could just tell then about some non-market economics...

[Dave B]

The problem with this idea of Doctor versus street cleaner thing is that the notion of social prestige in capitalism, normally denominated or thought of now in terms of wage remuneration in capitalism, is being transferred into a socialist or communist society.

Even within capitalism now, there is still a genuine working class sub culture, for the want of a better expression, over the social value of an individuals occupation within society that transcends the value judgements of monetary remuneration.

So for instance, at the risk of being accused of workerism, I work in a factory in the vegetarian food industry, producing something useful.

Many of my friends work in the computer industry writing meaningless software for what they know, deep down, is for the useless and unproductive finance industry.

One of my friends took a 50% pay cut and moved out of banking to work for the NHS, just because she felt that that was more useful.

I have gone on a holiday with the British Conservation Volunteer type people digging holes in the ground and dry stone walling and it was great fun.

I also know somebody who is a fairly senior ‘judge’ in the industrial tribunal process, and she is OK and politically with us, who went on holiday cutting sugar cane in Cuba and it was the best holiday she ever had.

I think William Morris in his boring book ‘News From Nowhere’ did this kind of thing quite well I think with the affectation of his well dressed ‘road menders’.

[benhur]

In a socialist society, pay is calculated by the amount of labor. So yes, a doctor will earn more than a cleaner. There's no such thing as equal pay in socialism, because it'd only breed injustice and resentment.

[BobKKKindle$]

Are there any comrades who oppose the idea of wage equality as a immediate revolutionary period or post-revolutionary principle? Are there any comrades who thinks its impossible until communist society 'develops'?

Firstly, it seems that your question is based on a false premise - you have assumed that wage equality is a desirable form of resource distribution in a communist society. This is not the case, as awarding everyone equal wages (which would, in turn, allow everyone to consume exactly the same amount of resources) fails to acknowledge that not every member of society has the same needs - if someone is suffering from a chronic medical condition and needs to take medicine on a regular basis they will obviously require access to more resources than an average person, or someone who enjoys living an ascetic lifestyle. A communist society would either find a way of objectively evaluating each individual's needs and distribute accordingly, or, assuming radical changes in human behavior have taken place, and humans can be trusted to respect the needs of the community, would allow each individual to take what they see as necessary or sensible from society's collective output. In an immediate post-revolutionary society, however, it will be necessary to distribute according to how much people work, such that if someone is willing to work for a longer period of time or perform more difficult forms of work they would be entitled to a large share of output than someone who is lazy. This system, which entails the application of a bourgeois standard of equality that does not account for differences in individual ability, is necessary because the ideological influence of capitalism would not disappear immediately after its overthrow, and so material incentives still serve a useful purpose. On this basis, a doctor would still receive more than an assembly line worker, but no-one would be allowed to accumulate wealth simply because they own an enterprise and hire other people to produce commodities, because private property would be abolished.

[Pogue]

Firstly, it seems that your question is based on a false premise - you have assumed that wage equality is a desirable form of resource distribution in a communist society. This is not the case, as awarding everyone equal wages (which would, in turn, allow everyone to consume exactly the same amount of resources) fails to acknowledge that not every member of society has the same needs - if someone is suffering from a chronic medical condition and needs to take medicine on a regular basis they will obviously require access to more resources than an average person, or someone who enjoys living an ascetic lifestyle. A communist society would either find a way of objectively evaluating each individual's needs and distribute accordingly, or, assuming radical changes in human behavior have taken place, and humans can be trusted to respect the needs of the community, would allow each individual to take what they see as necessary or sensible from society's collective output. In an immediate post-revolutionary society, however, it will be necessary to distribute according to how much people work, such that if someone is willing to work for a longer period of time or perform more difficult forms of work they would be entitled to a large share of output than someone who is lazy. This system, which entails the application of a bourgeois standard of equality that does not account for differences in individual ability, is necessary because the ideological influence of capitalism would not disappear immediately after its overthrow, and so material incentives still serve a useful purpose. On this basis, a doctor would still receive more than an assembly line worker, but no-one would be allowed to accumulate wealth simply because they own an enterprise and hire other people to produce commodities, because private property would be abolished.

That was one of the best answers I've ever read, thanks alot mate.

[Nwoye]

I don't have the same desire for wage equality that so many leftists share. Even if it was viable on a large scale, which I'm not sure it is, I don't know if it would be desirable.
You must remember that income disparities in a socialist society are very different then income disparities in a capitalist one. In a capitalist system, income disparities are most often the result of a surplus value on labor and not necessarily disparities in labor. In our alternative, this wouldn't be the case.