View Full Version : A work hours based economy?
I'm not sure how a communist economic system would work, but would it be possible at all to have one based on hours of work needed to make something? Also, would this be completely fair, in that an office job is a lot less tiring than a job in a factory etc.?
For example, a loaf of bread might cost x hours in electricity to make, y hours to produce the flour and z hours to put everything together. Of course, it would be a lot more complicated.
What do you think?
Note: As this is a question I thought it should put it in Learning, but feel free to move it to Economy or anything more related to my post.
rednordman
23rd May 2009, 18:17
Also, would this be completely fair, in that an office job is a lot less tiring than a job in a factory etc.?Ha. It couldnt be worser than it is now, I work in a factory, and get payed bugger all and treated with no respect compared to those people whom work in offices.
May I add though that this is a good topic and hope you get plenty of good responses.
You should take a look into "Ithaca Hours", I can't post links yet because I don't post much.
That said, I think a currency based on "hours of work" is functionally equivalent to paying everybody the same wage, unless one hour of work manual labor is worth different than one hour of work in an office, in which case it's functionally equivalent to exactly the type of economy we have now. Whether you give somebody a credit that they've done one hour of work, or a piece of paper for 10 or 20 dollars which any person (making the same wage) would earn for doing one hour of work, it's exactly the same thing.
May I add though that this is a good topic and hope you get plenty of good responses.
Thanks
That said, I think a currency based on "hours of work" is functionally equivalent to paying everybody the same wage, unless one hour of work manual labor is worth different than one hour of work in an office, in which case it's functionally equivalent to exactly the type of economy we have now. Whether you give somebody a credit that they've done one hour of work, or a piece of paper for 10 or 20 dollars which any person (making the same wage) would earn for doing one hour of work, it's exactly the same thing.
What I was saying is that someone working in an office job has a much easier time than someone working in a factory or a mine, and may be closer to their homes. This kind of system should also take into account the time spent dealing with tiredness, time spent travelling and also time spent at a hospital etc. due to job related illnesses.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is that "pay" should take into account everything a person goes through relating to a job.
You should take a look into "Ithaca Hours", I can't post links yet because I don't post much.
I've just had a look, and it seems pretty interesting. However, it also seems completely pointless in a system in which "money" is one's most important asset. Why not just pay people in dollars? What I propose is a system which could be adopted in a communist society.
What I was saying is that someone working in an office job has a much easier time than someone working in a factory or a mine, and may be closer to their homes. This kind of system should also take into account the time spent dealing with tiredness, time spent travelling and also time spent at a hospital etc. due to job related illnesses.
Basically, what I'm suggesting is that "pay" should take into account everything a person goes through relating to a job.
All those things are impossible to quantify, and an office job, depending on the work environment, can be more mentally and emotionally draining than any degree of manual labor.
That said, my point still stands: A currency based on hours, rather than money, is equivalent to paying everybody the exact same wage, the only difference is what you're calling it. A currency in which these "hours" are worth different values depending on the type of work being done, and how difficult it is, etc...is exactly the same as a money-based economy, where a 1 hour at mcdonalds is worth $5.00 and one hour of lawyering is worth about $300.00, or in the case where you also base the price of products based on the labor that went into them: two gallons of milk or 60 gallons of milk.
The point is, the only difference between the system you proposed and our current system, is that employers would pay for healthcare and travel expenses, which some employers already do.
All those things are impossible to quantify, and an office job, depending on the work environment, can be more mentally and emotionally draining than any degree of manual labor.
That said, my point still stands: A currency based on hours, rather than money, is equivalent to paying everybody the exact same wage, the only difference is what you're calling it. A currency in which these "hours" are worth different values depending on the type of work being done, and how difficult it is, etc...is exactly the same as a money-based economy, where a 1 hour at mcdonalds is worth $5.00 and one hour of lawyering is worth about $300.00, or in the case where you also base the price of products based on the labor that went into them: two gallons of milk or 60 gallons of milk.
The point is, the only difference between the system you proposed and our current system, is that employers would pay for healthcare and travel expenses, which some employers already do.
And also that in our current system, people are paid more simply because their jobs are valued more by capitalists than other jobs.
And also that in our current system, people are paid more simply because their jobs are valued more by capitalists than other jobs.
Obviously.
I was just pointing out that your system is exactly the same as a money economy, except that in yours you get paid for some work-related things instead of just directly for your labor. The actual value of individual jobs doesn't effect the point I was making about that. What you've suggested is a money-based economy where people get paid for commuting and their hospital bills paid. I think a true communist economy would be a very different animal, not just be a money economy where you got paid for more of your job, and jobs were considered more equally valuable.
Stranger Than Paradise
23rd May 2009, 19:28
Communism is not compatable with what you advocate. Communism is not communism without the aboliton of money.
mikelepore
23rd May 2009, 22:39
The kind of socialist economic system that I support would have work compensated with hourly incomes, with each rate multiplied by a coefficient to represent the way various kinds of work are differently strenuous, uncomfortable, hazardous, etc.
It would be possible to have abstract units of currency (dollars, etc.), but my preference would be for the prices of consumer goods to be expressed directly in terms of work hour credits.
I expect that the people would want some products, such as education and medicine, to be free. For free products, the resource allocation would have to be built into society's general ratio of incomes to work hours. As described in this excerpt (Link (http://www.deleonism.org/text/lv000016.htm)) from Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha Program', all aspects of general administration would require a deduction from everyone's compensation.
In an ongoing argument these past hundred years, there are some socialists who want all goods to be free, while people like myself insist that such a system wouldn't be possible. I believe that, if people didn't have to earn hourly incomes, then most individuals would have no reason ever to return from vacation and perform production at all. The individual's requirement to exchange work for consumption is necessary to avoid a contradictory situation where consumption increases as production decreases, causing the economic system to fall apart.
I believe that, if people didn't have to earn hourly incomes, then most individuals would have no reason ever to return from vacation and perform production at all. The individual's requirement to exchange work for consumption is necessary to avoid a contradictory situation where consumption increases as production decreases, causing the economic system to fall apart.
I believe that there are many kinds of production which many people would engage in willingly, because they enjoy them, and many other types of production which can be almost fully automated within the next several decades with ongoing advancements in robotics. I have a feeling that much of what is left might be manually divided between every able-bodied person in the society, and/or non-economic incentives provided for people who do "undesirable" work. I also would imagine that there would be social consequences for members of a community who are perceived as not doing their part.
The kind of socialist economic system that I support would have work compensated with hourly incomes, with each rate multiplied by a coefficient to represent the way various kinds of work are differently strenuous, uncomfortable, hazardous, etc.
It would be possible to have abstract units of currency (dollars, etc.), but my preference would be for the prices of consumer goods to be expressed directly in terms of work hour credits.
I expect that the people would want some products, such as education and medicine, to be free. For free products, the resource allocation would have to be built into society's general ratio of incomes to work hours. As described in this excerpt (Link (http://www.deleonism.org/text/lv000016.htm)) from Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha Program', all aspects of general administration would require a deduction from everyone's compensation.
In an ongoing argument these past hundred years, there are some socialists who want all goods to be free, while people like myself insist that such a system wouldn't be possible. I believe that, if people didn't have to earn hourly incomes, then most individuals would have no reason ever to return from vacation and perform production at all. The individual's requirement to exchange work for consumption is necessary to avoid a contradictory situation where consumption increases as production decreases, causing the economic system to fall apart.
That's along the same lines as what I was thinking, so thanks for clarifying it in my mind as well.
I believe that there are many kinds of production which many people would engage in willingly, because they enjoy them, and many other types of production which can be almost fully automated within the next several decades with ongoing advancements in robotics. I have a feeling that much of what is left might be manually divided between every able-bodied person in the society, and/or non-economic incentives provided for people who do "undesirable" work. I also would imagine that there would be social consequences for members of a community who are perceived as not doing their part.
Wouldn't that lead to "unfairness"? I believe that if a communist system is established then everyone will be able to pursue any career they want to, as they'll have less to worry about in terms of financial stability and other economic troubles. I also think that everyone is pretty much equal in terms of brain power, and it all depends on education, both in and out of school, how well you are able to use that power.
mikelepore
23rd May 2009, 23:20
I believe that there are many kinds of production which many people would engage in willingly, because they enjoy them, and many other types of production which can be almost fully automated within the next several decades with ongoing advancements in robotics. I have a feeling that much of what is left might be manually divided between every able-bodied person in the society, and/or non-economic incentives provided for people who do "undesirable" work. I also would imagine that there would be social consequences for members of a community who are perceived as not doing their part.
I think the kind of work that people would do because they enjoy them (that is, not to get paid for doing them) would would only go so far as to ensure that society will never have a shortage of musicians, dancers, poets, etc. There are virtually no members of the population who have ever described their hobbies to be operating mines, refineries, mills and factories. People might try such jobs as novelties, until the novelty wears off after a week. It wouldn't be a stable situation. We need certainty that an economic system will continue functioning.
***
When jobs are automated, that will change the characteristics of the work, but doesn't remove the need for the people. Perhaps, instead of a coal miner being a person who goes down into the ground, a coal miner would be a person who sits at a desk, reads a panel of indicators, and pushes buttons. I don't see any basic change to the need for a material incentive to have the people show up for work.
***
As for "consequences for members of a community who are perceived as not doing their part", the most humane kind of consequences I can think of is one where the individual who has refused to work goes to the store, then pushes a button that should make a luxury item be brought out on a conveyor belt, but the conveyor belt never begins to move, and the computer screen displays "Your account balance is insufficient. Transaction cancelled." Although capitalism invented that practice, I expect that socialism will have to do it also.
Wouldn't that lead to "unfairness"? I believe that if a communist system is established then everyone will be able to pursue any career they want to, as they'll have less to worry about in terms of financial stability and other economic troubles. I also think that everyone is pretty much equal in terms of brain power, and it all depends on education, both in and out of school, how well you are able to use that power.
What you just said in no way negates what I just said. People will be forced to share all of the work that nobody wants to do, maybe an hour or two a month, and then the rest of their time can be spent pursuing whatever career they want to do. If forced work sharing doesn't sound good to you, then people can be given non-economic incentives for doing labor that nobody particularly enjoys. In addition, I'm sure that people in a community who were all pursuing their own careers would look down on a person who didn't do any work. Those are the "social consequences" I'm talking about.
My ideas on this change pretty much constantly with new information, but I think a gift economy is a pretty reasonable idea, and I doubt if the problems with the idea lie in people being unwilling to work.
I think the kind of work that people would do because they enjoy them (that is, not to get paid for doing them) would would only go so far as to ensure that society will never have a shortage of musicians, dancers, poets, etc.
...and mechanics, computer technicians, doctors, programmers, engineers, scientists, researchers, electricians, architects, construction workers, and even potentially farmers, ranchers, etc. I think you underestimate the number of people who enjoy a lot of types of work.
There are virtually no members of the population who have ever described their hobbies to be operating mines, refineries, mills and factories. People might try such jobs as novelties, until the novelty wears off after a week. It wouldn't be a stable situation. We need certainty that an economic system will continue functioning.
I think these are many of the sorts of jobs that are relatively easy to automate, which I'll talk more about below.
When jobs are automated, that will change the characteristics of the work, but doesn't remove the need for the people.
It removes the need for a lot of the people. As things have become more automated in industry, the same or more work has been able to be done by smaller numbers of people. It may reach the point where a single person can manage tens, hundreds or thousands of mining robots. If nobody is willing to do this, then perhaps this is one of the types of jobs which can have non-economic incentives offered for it, or one which is shared by everyone for an hour or two a month.
mikelepore
24th May 2009, 03:19
Whether people "enjoy" something is uninformative because it's relative to expectations and perceived possibilities. I enjoy the time I spend taking out the garbage, relative to the thought of keeping the garbage in the house. I enjoy the afternoon when my teeth get drilled, relative to the thought of my teeth falling out. No information about workable or unworkable socioeconomic systems is conveyed by what people today report that they enjoy. It is important, however, that they are not observed to work without payment.
P1 = the probability that they will show up for work if their standard of living depends on them showing up.
P2 = the probability that they will show up for work if their standard of living would be exactly the same whether they show up or not.
Is there any proof that P1 = P2?
If not, then we shouldn't discard the only method that we already know to be workable.
If someone invents a new kind of parachute that has never been tested before, I won't grab one and jump off a cliff.
Whether people "enjoy" something is uninformative because it's relative to expectations and perceived possibilities. I enjoy the time I spend taking out the garbage, relative to the thought of keeping the garbage in the house. I enjoy the afternoon when my teeth get drilled, relative to the thought of my teeth falling out. No information about workable or unworkable socioeconomic systems is conveyed by what people today report that they enjoy.
And I think that people will continue to enjoy certain types of work relative to doing nothing, or to sitting around most of the time, and I don't think economic incentives are necessary for this to be the case. There are other incentives to work, and I imagine that in a society in which the members were all willing to work strenuously together to create a socialist society, it is unlikely that they would suddenly be unwilling to continue to work. Anyone unwilling to work in this society would likely be disrespected in their community and as a consequence, their quality of life would suffer.
It is important, however, that they are not observed to work without payment.
This just isn't true, many people work on cars, as mechanics, are programmers, or do a variety of other things without compensation because they enjoy them, and this in spite of the fact that they could be receiving compensation for them. I think even more occupations would take on this character should there not be the alternative to also be compensated for this work.
P1 = the probability that they will show up for work if their standard of living depends on them showing up.
P2 = the probability that they will show up for work if their standard of living would be exactly the same whether they show up or not.
Is there any proof that P1 = P2?
If not, then we shouldn't discard the only method that we already know to be workable.
It depends on what the benefits of the new method is in comparison with the old one. There is no hard proof that socialism is better than capitalism, but we are all striving for it because we have very strong convictions that the new method will be more fair, and better than the old, with evidence to back this up. I don't know if there is sufficient evidence for a similar belief with regards to a gift economy vs. a money economy, but I think so. It removes a lot of bureaucratic overhead of dealing with those who are unable to work, or who are unable to work longer hours, or those whose work isn't something which is easy to compensate (such as a novelist. Should she get paid per hour of writing? Certainly not book sales, which would allow for economic inequalities to arise).
If someone invents a new kind of parachute that has never been tested before, I won't grab one and jump off a cliff.
That's because there isn't a whole lot of problems with the current parachute. But if you're dealing with a system that has a lot of problems already, and there is sound theory behind a new system which would eliminate those problems, shouldn't it at least be tested?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.