Should everyone have the same wage?

[night]

Hey!
I am new here in the site.
Would it be fair for everyone to get paid equally?A doctor, for instance, is a person who studied for long and hard years to become a doctor. On the other hand, a janitor, for example, is an unqualified worker.
Should they get the same money? If not, who is to decide?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Hey!
I am new here in the site.
Would it be fair for everyone to get paid equally?A doctor, for instance, is a person who studied for long and hard years to become a doctor. On the other hand, a janitor, for example, is an unqualified worker.
Should they get the same money? If not, who is to decide?

Why shouldn't they get paid the same?

Think about it. All labour is social. What I mean is that a janitor cleaning the hospital is detrimental to the functionality of said hospital where nurses, doctors, secretaries, etc, etc are at work.

The same can be said for a school. Without a janitor at school it will begin to affect teachers and administrators who have jobs to do.

[Raúl Duke]

No,
Communism will not employ wages, salaries, etc.

I cannot be sure how the details of equal access to distribution will play out in communism, that's for the future revolutionary generation/society to decide, but I do know that the Technocrats have something called "energy accounting" in which everyone will be provided a high (as in ideally the amount would allow people to live very comfortably; i.e. it's not a "ration" allowance) allowance of non-cumulative (this part being important) "e-credits" determined by conditions in production/etc. We'll also be aiming for (although whether we would reach it 100%, IDK) a "post-scarcity" society.

Under communism (and technocracy) most un-wanted labor will probably be automatized. Another solution I heard is to leave un-wanted labor as voluntary work or to make those tasks into rotational tasks amongst members of the community.

Beforehand, we would probably have socialism (where the working class has political/economic/social power; but haven't yet reached the whole "From each according to their abilities, to each according to needs/want" economic situation) and perhaps during that period there will be "money" (of some sort/form) but I doubt wages will be equalized (or not to a 100% degree).

[x371322]

Socialism is not so much about "equal" wages, as it is about "fair" wages. People should be paid based not on prestige or status, but on the work they do, and their level of need. Besides, without a janitor to keep the schools clean, how are our teachers supposed to teach our kids to become doctors?

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

I think you should be paid a fair wage. That takes into account what you do, the skill level required and finally the amount of work that you do. Noting that some jobs are more stressful than others.

[chegitz guevara]

Under socialism, the dictum will be, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work. Under communism it is, to from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. ... according to Lenin anyway.

As the market will not be abolished when we first take power, labor-power will be paid for the same as any other commodity, according to the amount of labor-power it takes to create and renew it. As we production begins to make the market superfluous, we will begin transitioning to communism. Everything, even labor-power, will be free, the market will have whithered away, and along with it, the state. Who would steal when everything is free for the taking?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

We shout not be coming at this from the point of view of 'should a Doctor and a Janitor receive the same amount of currency per period'. That is quite a tired argument. There are of course arguments on both sides. Logic would dictate that a Doctor should receive more currency simply because he/she is on the frontline, has the responsibility for savings lives etc. But then, there was a well publicised study recently (the link is floating around here somewhere, i've lost it unfortunately) recently which showed that cleaners and similar auxiliary staff contribute far more to the economy than their remuneration and prestige-status would suggest.

If we leave the above aside, we should really say to ourselves that the problem here is not whether a Doctor or a Janitor earns more, but a more fundamental problem: the currency problem.

We need to abolish 'currency', in its current form. Only then can one fairly reward different people for the jobs they do. Paul Cockshott has in many a thread on here provided a useful exposition of a post-currency economy based on labour credits, whereby normal goods are essentially produced in abundance and do not have a costed exchange-value (I haven't read Kapital but I think that is the correct context for the 'exchange-value' term). Labour credits thus only extend to the luxury and rare goods categories. So whilst it may be possible, in a post-currency economy, to award, for instance, a Doctor more labour credits than a Janitor, at least in a labour-credit economy, nobody would go without basic provisions, in addition to many normal goods and some luxury items.

[Paul Cockshott]

Hey!
I am new here in the site.
Would it be fair for everyone to get paid equally?A doctor, for instance, is a person who studied for long and hard years to become a doctor. On the other hand, a janitor, for example, is an unqualified worker.
Should they get the same money? If not, who is to decide?

It depends on the society within which skills are developed. In the USA doctors have to pay for their own education and as such the high cost of training acts to restrict supply and in consequence allows them to bid up the price of the their labour.
In addition the AMA acts to restrict entry into medical schools to perpetuate the condition of supply shortage.

In the USSR medical education was paid for by the government and medical students got grants to support them during their studies. In consequence there were both more doctors and the average pay of doctors was below that of many groups of manual workers.

More generally, if education costs are met by the state, and if those studying are paid decent income whilst studying, there is no reason why skilled labour should be paid more. Recall that whilst studying is hard work, it is not necessarily harder work than many less skilled people do if they go directly into paid employment.

[Klaatu]

Wage levels should be voted upon. The voters decide that a doctor (who contributes much value to society)
gets paid much more than an janitor (who contributes too, but has no skills)

An engineer's pay might be voted to be somewhere in between these, etc.

Personally, I would vote bankers and entertainers below engineer, above janitor.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I've never understood why people regard medical school etc. as an investment which would entitle someone to higher pay. On the contrary, it's a privilege you derive from the rest of society; you get to duck out of productive labor during the time period needed to train to do something you want to do (and if you don't want to do it, you shouldn't be doing it). It makes sense, I suppose, in a society where you have to pay your own way through medical/professional school (though only if you're actually paying your own way rather than relying on your parents or society), but in a society where access to education was truly social, it's simply nonsense.

[danyboy27]

i think its important to somehow reward people who do job people dont want to do beccause its either verry hard or tiedious.

Its basic human ressource management. You lack of Medic? you put incentive in place to attrack new people in Med school.

Of course, those incentive should be decided in the community, by the people who live there.

Personally, i really dont give a fuck that a Doctor or an engineer got more benefit than me, has long we control the mean of production, i dont fucking care about the rest.

Its not about what other people have, its about what people Control.

If doctor got discount on booze or furniture, i have great doubt about the impact it will have on my Everyday life.

[Klaatu]

Recall that whilst studying is hard work, it is not necessarily harder work than many less skilled people do if they go directly into paid employment.

I don't necessarily agree with that. For example, you may have a very high IQ, and math, for example,
may come easy to you. I am not one of high intellect, and even though math comes easy to me, foreign
language was a *****, a humbling experience for me. I teach physics and calculus, and I see a lot of
students struggling to keep above water. It is very hard work.

As a teacher, I have a different perspective on this. So I say pay the doctor and engineer more.
They worked very hard to get to where they are at.

As far as socialism is concerned, I am against money-grabbing Wall Street, bankers, lawyers, and insurance
CEOs getting paid (literally) millions, while there are homeless people living on the streets. Let us shrink down
these staggeringly large extremes of income. Sure, doctors should earn more than unskilled workers.
But not millions more. A few thousands more, perhaps. Let the voters decide.

But these top-heavy corporate bastards must be chopped down to size. It's only fair to the average worker.

[Dr Mindbender]

Hey!
I am new here in the site.
Would it be fair for everyone to get paid equally?A doctor, for instance, is a person who studied for long and hard years to become a doctor. On the other hand, a janitor, for example, is an unqualified worker.
Should they get the same money? If not, who is to decide?

It isnt so much that people should get the same wage or not, its more that people shouldnt be in a situation where they are punished by being forced to do unskilled work that is deemed more lowly than what the 'skilled folk' do. Money is little more than a mechanism to keep us enslaved to a system whereby people are co-erced into miserable circumstances by nepotists, people with greater social favour and those generally best adept at nothing else other than fanning the flames of the status quo. More often than not, intelligence and tangible ability in the material sense is of secondary concern which pretty much debunks any claim by the capitalists that their system is in any way a meritocratic one.

We live in a epoch where automated production means scross the board are a feasible reality and full potential is only frustrated by the bourgeoisie and their blessed love for this scarcity system. Yet capitalism not only fails to implement this but it even creates even more unnecessary roles such as government bureaucracy, debt collection in the financial sector or border enforcement that serve no purpose other than to exacerbate human despair and the divide between rich and poor. The point is, the sort of society we ought to be pushing for is one where not only the fruits of labour are distributed but also the chances to lead happy fulfilling purposes.

[Meridian]

I have no idea why we think it is fair that people who (supposedly) do harder jobs are to get paid more. I do not believe there are such a thing as harder jobs, I only know that all work is needed (unless it is meaningless bullshit, profit-only type jobs). If people work for the same time, they should get the same pay. If people want to get highly educated, they should be paid through education as well.

Now, this isn't communism. In communism, no one would get paid anything, as there would be no wages and no one to "give" wages (no one to exploit anyone).

[Dr Mindbender]

I have no idea why we think it is fair that people who (supposedly) do harder jobs are to get paid more.

Its quite simple really. ''A binman does not need much training, if any. A doctor needs to go to university for 3-5 years and do a phd at the end. If a binman and doctor get the same material reward what is the motive for a doctor to spend upwards of 6 years at university when he could be a binman from the get go and be as well off?''

Of course i agree this is a poor rationale and is the talk of an apologist of this wretched mode of scarcity distribution. My personal take on this is that we ought to push for a cultural scenario where accepting that people should empty bins for a living is considered as reprehensible as sending children up chimneys (http://www.ourwardfamily.com/children_of_the_1800's.htm#Work).

[Robocommie]

sending children up chimneys (http://www.ourwardfamily.com/children_of_the_1800%27s.htm#Work).

We have to put the little bastards somewhere.

[lulks]

people doing less desirable jobs should receive more labor credits so that there is the right amount of people doing each job. the desirability depends not only on the job itself but on the work required to attain the job, such as education. according to parecon this should be done by people giving ratings on how hard a job is, but a simpler and better method is if there aren't enough people doing a job, raise the wages for that job, and if there are too many, lower the wages.

[AK]

Wages - under socialism - should be determined by how much you work and your need, etc.

That's a fair wage. You have to keep in mind that some jobs have much shorter or much longer hours and are more or less physically demanding than others. This is why wage equality is fucking stupid.

[Klaatu]

Wages - under socialism - should be determined by how much you work and your need, etc.

That's a fair wage. You have to keep in mind that some jobs have much shorter or much longer hours and are more or less physically demanding than others. This is why wage equality is fucking stupid.

In a communist system (such as monks living in a monastery) the work of
each member is essentially equal in difficulty and duration (monks spend
a lot of time praying, which is an equalizing activity) Therefore it is rational
that all of the members are paid equally (if paid at all; mostly they just
live and contribute to the commune).

Under socialism, however, there is reward for hard work or exceptional skill.
But not millions of dollars, as is in a material-world-oriented capitalist system.

Both socialism and communism are of a higher level; they are more intellectual,
more principled, and more civilized, than capitalism.

[Lynx]

If there is a labor shortage you can use wage differential as an incentive. This approach treats the labor market according to supply and demand. Unpleasant jobs would command a higher wage.

[CartCollector]

As was mentioned in another thread by chegitz, labor power is a commodity, just like physical goods. Giving the same wage for all labor is just as foolish with the conditions we have currently as giving the same price to all goods.

[anticap]

Nobody should be "paid" anything. Money implies injustice: I need exchangeable tokens to get resources because someone else has claimed them as property. But Earth's resources are the common heritage of all; being born next to the water hole does not entitle you to extract a fee from those born in the desert. This logic doesn't fall apart simply because you dug the hole that brought forth the water; all that does is raise other issues, such as the genetic lottery (what if I can't dig? should I die of thirst?).


I've never understood why people regard medical school etc. as an investment which would entitle someone to higher pay. On the contrary, it's a privilege you derive from the rest of society; you get to duck out of productive labor during the time period needed to train to do something you want to do (and if you don't want to do it, you shouldn't be doing it). It makes sense, I suppose, in a society where you have to pay your own way through medical/professional school (though only if you're actually paying your own way rather than relying on your parents or society), but in a society where access to education was truly social, it's simply nonsense.

This is an important point. It reminds me of Kropotkin's statements on "brain work" versus "manual work" (or "white [clean] hands" versus "black [dirty] hands"). The reason you're able to be a doctor with clean hands (OK, perhaps bloody hands) is because someone else is doing the dirty work of feeding you. This luxury ought to be payment enough; any doctor who disagrees can join the food producers in the fields.

[Common_Means]

.

[lulks]

Nobody should be "paid" anything. Money implies injustice
I think when people here are saying paid they mean they will receive labor credits that can't be circulated, not money.

[anticap]

I think when people here are saying paid they mean they will receive labor credits that can't be circulated, not money.

I'm not sure I see a valid distinction here (I do recognize it elsewhere). The point here is that someone is denying me resources unless I can justify myself to them by displaying some kind of token or ticket. This means that someone else has exclusionary rights to those resources, which implies property, which most of us oppose (and which must be enforced, implying class; but that's another thread).

[mikelepore]

In a socialist society it's all right if compensation for job A is four times that of job B because there is a social policy that recognizes that job A is four times as strenuous as job B. The problem with capitalism is that inequality of compensation isn't linked to any such claim. Some school teachers get salaries of $35,000 per year, while Alex Rodriquez of the New York Yankees baseball team was given a salary of $230 million, not linked to any claim that Rodriquez's job is 6,500 times more strenuous than the teacher's job. The unequal income levels of capitalism are unreasoned.

[Crusade]

I'm not sure I see a valid distinction here (I do recognize it elsewhere). The point here is that someone is denying me resources unless I can justify myself to them by displaying some kind of token or ticket. This means that someone else has exclusionary rights to those resources, which implies property, which most of us oppose (and which must be enforced, implying class; but that's another thread).

We oppose property or private property? How does one oppose property itself?

[anticap]

We oppose property or private property? How does one oppose property itself?

I assumed that the distinction was well-understood at this forum. If you don't understand it, then open a thread about it. :)

[lulks]

I'm not sure I see a valid distinction here (I do recognize it elsewhere). The point here is that someone is denying me resources unless I can justify myself to them by displaying some kind of token or ticket. This means that someone else has exclusionary rights to those resources, which implies property, which most of us oppose (and which must be enforced, implying class; but that's another thread).
most of us oppose private property but not personal property. it seems that what you are proposing is that everyone should be able to get anything without having to work. that is how the final stage of communism should be, but not the lower stage.

[mikelepore]

A doctor, for instance, is a person who studied for long and hard years to become a doctor. On the other hand, a janitor, for example, is an unqualified worker.

If the doctor's training is considered work time, the doctor-in-training would already be compensated fully when the training is received.

Compare two individuals, the first person remains a janitor, and the second person starts out as a janitor but then gets trained to be a doctor:

First person:

year 1: janitor
year 2: janitor
year 3: janitor
year 4: janitor
year 5: janitor
year 6: janitor
year 7: janitor

Second person:

year 1: janitor
year 2: training
year 3: training
year 4: training
year 5: training
year 6: training
year 7: doctor

They both contributed to society the same number of years of work.

[anticap]

most of us oppose private property but not personal property.

That is correct (more or less). But why are you raising it here?


it seems that what you are proposing is that everyone should be able to get anything without having to work.

Not so.


that is how the final stage of communism should be, but not the lower stage.

That distinction is not universally shared.

But how does any of this tie into my points?

[Crusade]

I assumed that the distinction was well-understood at this forum. If you don't understand it, then open a thread about it. :)

The distinction between what?

[anticap]

The distinction between what?


property or private property?

FYI: I don't intend to be derailed on this point. The distinction is (or ought to be) commonly understood here.

[Crusade]

FYI: I don't intend to be derailed on this point. The distinction is (or ought to be) commonly understood here.

I don't understand what you're referring to. If you're not making a distinction between private and personal property, what are you referring to? An objection to both? Could you be more specific?

[anticap]

If you're not making a distinction between private and personal property

I do. As socialists, we all do (or ought to). You seemed not to understand this. I assumed it was well-understood and didn't need mentioning.

Good grief.

Now, unless you intend to tie this into my original point, I've gone as far down this track as I intend to.

[Crusade]

I do. As socialists, we all do (or ought to).

Good grief.

Now, unless you intend to tie this into my original point, I've gone as far down this track as I intend to.

What? My post meant if you weren't attempting to do that in that specific post, what did you mean by it?

[lulks]

Not so. what kind of system are you advocating then? i think in the lower stage of communism, people should be able to get stuff according to their sacrifice. labor credits are a means of keeping track of this. this differs from money in that when you spend the labor credit, the person who made the thing you bought doesn't receive the labor credit, they just receive based on their sacrifice also.

edit:

But Earth's resources are the common heritage of all; being born next to the water hole does not entitle you to extract a fee from those born in the desert.
I agree with this, that won't happen in a labor credit system. maybe you are misunderstanding what I mean?

[anticap]

what kind of system are you advocating then?

I'm not "advocating" any kind of system in this thread. I simply made a point, based on the assumption that the OP was inquiring about communism.


the lower stage of communism

I don't recognize "stages" of communism. For me, there is communism, and non-communism. Within non-communism is an infinite range of possible social systems, some more desirable than others. I deny that a non-communist system set up by pro-communists qualifies on that basis to be labeled a "lower stage" of communism. I would recognize it simply as what it is: a relatively desirable example of non-communism.


labor credits

All I could do here would be to repeat myself.


maybe you are misunderstanding what I mean?

Maybe; but I still don't see how it ties into my point, considering the assumption I was operating under when I made it.

[lulks]

I'm not "advocating" any kind of system in this thread.
okay, but how do you believe it should be?

I deny that a non-communist system set up by pro-communists qualifies on that basis to be labeled a "lower stage" of communism.
why isn't a labor credit system communist? I think you are misunderstanding me

I need exchangeable tokens to get resources because someone else has claimed them as property.
this is not how it would be. people wouldn't be able to exchange labor credits. they are just used to keep track of how much people consume so they don't consume more than they worked for.

there is no private property in a labor credit system. resources like water would be controlled by the whole working class. no one could just claim a resource that they found.

so if you still think this is not communist, please explain why

[RedHK]

Not to stray away from the current discussion going on, but here is my .02

I do not believe a doctor should be paid the same exact wage, but I do believe that just because the doctor is a doctor, he should not be considered better than an average worker who puts just as much time in as a Janitor, but seeing how being a doctor may require special talent and extra training, I believe the wage for the doctor should be a little bit higher, but not so much that it would make the doctor 10 times more rich than the Janitor, but more like "Talent Funds", as I like to call them.

I do not know if anyone here would agree with me, but this is how I always thought of it.

[anticap]

how do you believe it should be?

My user-title ought to have given me away, but I don't think my preference is relevant to the subject at hand.


why isn't a labor credit system communist? I think you are misunderstanding me

No, I think you've misunderstood me: I've made no claim one way or the other as to that question. I thought it was blindingly obvious that I was merely stating my position on the whole "stages of communism" business.


people wouldn't be able to exchange labor credits. they are just used to keep track of how much people consume so they don't consume more than they worked for.

And how does that jive with "from each according to ability; to each according to need"?


if you still think this is not communist, please explain why

Again, I made no claim one way or the other as to that question -- at least until I asked the above question. In light of that, it seems to me that it's you who has the explaining to do.

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but I wish you'd save your sales-pitch for someone else. To turn a lyric from Travis Tritt (http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/travis-tritt/heres-a-quarter-call-someone-who-cares-3494.html): "Here's a labor credit, call someone who cares."

(Sometimes I wonder why I bother with forums. The propensity for getting dragged into inconsequential minutiae is so high as to make me skittish every time I click "submit.")


Not to stray away from the current discussion going on

Please, please do! Hopefully your .02 will get the thread back on-topic.

[lulks]

And how does that jive with "from each according to ability; to each according to need"?it doesn't. that's how it will be in the highest stage of communism

I wish you'd save your sales-pitch for someone else. i'm not trying to give a sales pitch, i'm just defending the labor credit system which I think almost all marxists believe in from your criticism.

[Klaatu]

If the doctor's training is considered work time, the doctor-in-training would already be compensated fully when the training is received.

Compare two individuals, the first person remains a janitor, and the second person starts out as a janitor but then gets trained to be a doctor:

First person:

year 1: janitor
year 2: janitor
year 3: janitor
year 4: janitor
year 5: janitor
year 6: janitor
year 7: janitor

Second person:

year 1: janitor
year 2: training
year 3: training
year 4: training
year 5: training
year 6: training
year 7: doctor

They both contributed to society the same number of years of work.

We must also consider each man's value to society. For example, anyone can sweep floors.
But very few are capable of mastering the immense knowledge which a doctor must learn.
(Few would have the patience either, to study that hard)

[CassieMc]

It is the monetary system that breeds corruption. There should be no need for money.

[ZeroNowhere]

And how does that jive with "from each according to ability; to each according to need"?
I find it vaguely amusing that this quote was made famous by the Critique of the Gotha Program, in a passage in which Marx discusses the lower stage of communism, with labour credits.

[Klaatu]

It is the monetary system that breeds corruption. There should be no need for money.

A money-less barter system might be better, in terms of anti-corruption, etc.

[anticap]

I find it vaguely amusing that this quote was made famous by the Critique of the Gotha Program, in a passage in which Marx discusses the lower stage of communism, with labour credits.

Since, as I've already made clear (but I've stopped assuming that anyone here reads before posting, so don't sweat it), I entered the thread under the assumption that the OP was talking about communism (the so-called "higher stage"), this ought not amuse you in the slightest.

[Luisrah]

We must also consider each man's value to society. For example, anyone can sweep floors.
But very few are capable of mastering the immense knowledge which a doctor must learn.
(Few would have the patience either, to study that hard)

Although each person's value to society must be considered, we must not forget each person's effort as well.

In a ridiculous example, the same amount of work, with the same quality of a handicapped person is more ''valuable'' than that of a normal person, since the first put more effort into it.
Well, that's actually quite a bad example, but what I mean is, some work may be extremely valuable to society, but it may be very desirable or easy to do, while some work maybe extremely valuable to society aswell, and be undesirable work, like working as a janitor or a binman (or whatever it's called)

[mikelepore]

We must also consider each man's value to society. For example, anyone can sweep floors.
But very few are capable of mastering the immense knowledge which a doctor must learn.
(Few would have the patience either, to study that hard)

Where you say "we must also consider", that's an ethical judgment, and, if we were voting on what system to implement, it's a judgment that I would vote against making any use of. I believe that would make labor power become a commodity, which is the thing that is to be avoided. If there is something extraordinarily painful about studing from medical textbooks, compared to an equal number of hours studying from textbooks on architecture or particle physics or some other subjects, then the extent of that difference should be estimated and considered, but don't believe there is any such difference. There may be more hours, but not necessarily more effort per hour.

[mikelepore]

If there is a labor shortage you can use wage differential as an incentive. This approach treats the labor market according to supply and demand. Unpleasant jobs would command a higher wage.

That's true, but you don't have to let the measurements of supply and demand run on automatic to exert that control. You can have a special department of elected representatives to listen to public dialogue, talk it over, and make the decision that the firefighter should get paid 2.4 times as much as me per hour, or whatever number they select, both to compensate the people fairly, and also to attract enough people as required to fix the labor shortages. I would prefer that method.

[Meridian]

Its quite simple really. ''A binman does not need much training, if any. A doctor needs to go to university for 3-5 years and do a phd at the end. If a binman and doctor get the same material reward what is the motive for a doctor to spend upwards of 6 years at university when he could be a binman from the get go and be as well off?''

That is why I said education should be paid for as well. That way, anyone who is actually interested in a 'educated' profession should be highly encouraged to study it.

In fact, education may even be promoted somehow.

All this is far preferable to a shitty wage system. The even better option is no wage slavery at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

More generally, if education costs are met by the state, and if those studying are paid decent income whilst studying, there is no reason why skilled labour should be paid more. Recall that whilst studying is hard work, it is not necessarily harder work than many less skilled people do if they go directly into paid employment.

I eagerly await your paper or blog on training income. ;)


Wage levels should be voted upon. The voters decide that a doctor (who contributes much value to society)
gets paid much more than an janitor (who contributes too, but has no skills)

An engineer's pay might be voted to be somewhere in between these, etc.

Personally, I would vote bankers and entertainers below engineer, above janitor.



Socio-Income Democracy, Part II: Maximum Wage vs. Direct Democracy in Income Multiples

“Pay matters. How much you earn can determine your lifestyle, where you can afford to live, and your aspirations and status. But to what extent does what we get paid confer ‘worth’? Beyond a narrow notion of productivity, what impact does our work have on the rest of society, and do the financial rewards we receive correspond to this? Do those that get more contribute more to society? With controversial bonuses being paid out this Christmas in bailed-out banks, we believe that it is time to ask challenging questions such as these.” (Eilís Lawlor, Helen Kersley, and Susan Steed)

In December 2009, the UK-based New Economics Foundation released a well-publicized report on whether modern pay structures reflect the value of various jobs. Eilís Lawlor, Helen Kersley, and Susan Steed examined six jobs: corporate executives in banks, similar executives in advertising, tax accountants, hospital cleaners, child care workers, and waste recycling workers. The first three were found to be destroying value for British society, while the last three were found to be creating value.

Despite this research and subsequent policy recommendations, the report was within the conceptual framework of the maximum wage. Indeed, the draft party program of Die Linke (The Left party in Germany), released in March 2010, called for limiting manager salaries to “20 times the lowest-paid workers in the company,” but called for nothing broader.

Earlier I introduced the concept of “socio-income democracy” when discussing direct democracy in taxation of the various, class-based types of income as an immediate but real, reform-enabling reform. What the maximum wage framework does not take into consideration are property income, normal and windfall profits, dividends, and capital gains. Moreover, its proponents – “socialists” and otherwise – dare not venture outside the limits of economism, simply by calling for a single relative limit legislated into law.

Taken to at least an intermediate step, “socio-income democracy” is also for direct proposals and rejections – at the national level and above – regarding the creation and adjustment of income multiples in all industries, for all major working-class and other professions, and across all types of income. Thus, the three most prominent bourgeois occupations covered are the corporate executive, the celebrity and any associated formal or informal “brands” (arising from professional athleticism or general entertainment), and the multi-millionaire investor. It should be noted that the word “income” is subject to debate, since it should not cover inheritances (discussed elsewhere), and since it may or may not cover things like lottery winnings.

Does this reform facilitate the issuance of either intermediate or threshold demands? That would depend on how one relates this reform to the measure of aligning the interests of “agent” officials in all political and related administrative offices with the interests of the “principal” population as a whole by means of aligning standards of living (towards some average standard of living for professional and other skilled workers). Discussion on the former could be a means of facilitating discussion on the latter, or vice versa, but neither measure is really dependent upon the other. No other intermediate or threshold demand is at stake.

Does this reform enable the basic principles to be “kept consciously in view”? If the maximum wage framework alone is already seen as one of class struggle, how much more is this expanded “socio-income democracy”? Next, there is the idea within social labour that each individual should contribute according to personal ability and receive personal want “according to his work” (despite the Soviet distortion of that slogan towards ignoring personal need). Also, the problem of elite emigration poses the need for transnational politics.



REFERENCES




A Bit Rich by Eilís Lawlor, Helen Kersley, and Susan Steed [http://www.neweconomics.org/sites/neweconomics.org/files/A_Bit_Rich.pdf]

Program of the Left Party (Draft) by Oskar Lafontaine and Lothar Bisky [http://die-linke.de/programm/programmentwurf/]

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1936) by Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin [http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html]

[Sir Comradical]

Possibly. Under the conditions created by socialism, I'd assume that incentives would be needed for people to work jobs that are physically demanding and dangerous, like mining for example. However under capitalism, such jobs are often the lowest paid in many parts of the world.

[Klaatu]

Where you say "we must also consider", that's an ethical judgment, and, if we were voting on what system to implement, it's a judgment that I would vote against making any use of. I believe that would make labor power become a commodity, which is the thing that is to be avoided. If there is something extraordinarily painful about studing from medical textbooks, compared to an equal number of hours studying from textbooks on architecture or particle physics or some other subjects, then the extent of that difference should be estimated and considered, but don't believe there is any such difference. There may be more hours, but not necessarily more effort per hour.

One thing I will give into your argument is that, the doctor wants to do his type of work, and feels a need, a duty, to help others.
As another example, I enjoy teaching physics and calculus - my job is a rewarding one - I am training future scientists and engineers.
I learned long ago that, in order to be successful in one's career, one must think in terms of bettering the human condition,
not so much the monetary benefits. Help others, and you will be a success.

That is what puts socialism above capitalism - the human side vs the wealth side. It is always better to give than to receive.

[ZeroNowhere]

Since, as I've already made clear (but I've stopped assuming that anyone here reads before posting, so don't sweat it), I entered the thread under the assumption that the OP was talking about communism (the so-called "higher stage"), this ought not amuse you in the slightest.
That's interesting, I was not aware that the higher stage of communist society was a stage of communist society, but the lower stage of communist society was not.

[The Vegan Marxist]

We must also consider each man's value to society. For example, anyone can sweep floors.
But very few are capable of mastering the immense knowledge which a doctor must learn.
(Few would have the patience either, to study that hard)

I would actually argue that not everyone can do the immense cleaning services that professional janitors endure through, but only because one wasn't trained properly. Same thing goes with doctors. One could say that one might not have the mental capabilities of learning how to be doctor, or maybe even a janitor, but are we really going to give less wages to a person due to mental problems? If there are no mental problems, then I see no reason why a person wouldn't be able to learn how to be this or that. I'm not advocating the equal share of wages to everyone, since "each according to their ability, each according to their need" is an importance within the path towards Communism, but I am advocating the chance for equal fairness of the wages they gain from their labor.

[Klaatu]

I would actually argue that not everyone can do the immense cleaning services that professional janitors endure through, but only because one wasn't trained properly. Same thing goes with doctors. One could say that one might not have the mental capabilities of learning how to be doctor, or maybe even a janitor, but are we really going to give less wages to a person due to mental problems? If there are no mental problems, then I see no reason why a person wouldn't be able to learn how to be this or that. I'm not advocating the equal share of wages to everyone, since "each according to their ability, each according to their need" is an importance within the path towards Communism, but I am advocating the chance for equal fairness of the wages they gain from their labor.

We also must attract people to become doctors, and that might necessitate a carrot-and-stick approach.

(We cannot force people to become doctors.)

Sorry if I sound like a (ahem) capitalist here, ;) but incentives are a part of human nature.

[InuyashaKnight]

No, because harder the job the more the pay...

[mikelepore]

We also must attract people to become doctors, and that might necessitate a carrot-and-stick approach.

(We cannot force people to become doctors.)

Sorry if I sound like a (ahem) capitalist here, ;) but incentives are a part of human nature.

You're right about all that, but the point that some people here are trying to make is that it's already an incentive to say that every hour studying in medical school would be considered paid work time.

Even if the doctor doesn't get a higher income than anyone else, but the medical student was previously paid to memorize the textbooks -- isn't the necessary incentive in full operation there?

(I would add this: getting job-related education should be paid as work time IF the individual continues to pass the examinations.)

[Klaatu]

(I would add this: getting job-related education should be paid as work time IF the individual continues to pass the examinations.)

I agree 100%. Those who provide an important public service, such as doctors,
should get entirely free education, upon condition of the completion of studies.

Should they get paid more, while in the field? That should be up to voters to decide.

In a socialist democracy, the voters decide wages and fair prices for goods and services.

[anticap]

That's interesting, I was not aware that the higher stage of communist society was a stage of communist society, but the lower stage of communist society was not.

Neither was I. Generally when someone wraps a term in sneer quotes, and prefaces it with "so-called," they're trying to make it explicit that they don't subscribe to that notion.

Anyway, I'm not interested in arguing over what amounts to a semantic quibble. I don't deny that there will be something-or-other prior to communism; I just deny that it will warrant being called a "stage" of communism simply by virtue of being implemented by communists. This is similar to why I take flak from Leninists, who believe that the USSR was socialist, whereas I do not, yet I don't deny that what they achieved was progressive.

P.S. Sorry for the late reply. I'm going through my subscribed threads looking for unfinished discussions to wrap up.

[syndicat]

according to parecon this should be done by people giving ratings on how hard a job is, but a simpler and better method is if there aren't enough people doing a job, raise the wages for that job, and if there are too many, lower the wages.

anyone who thinks that unpleasant jobs will command a higher wage isn't paying attention to the existing labor market. skills and expertise are public goods in the sense that a firm that puts a lot of investment into educating a workforce to a higher skill level has just trained the workforce of its competitors, since of course people are free to leave and go to another employer.

hence capitalists try to deskilll and eliminate skill wherever possible. because skills that require longer periods of education are scarce, they can command a higher pay level, and often other perks as well, including more say over their work and so on.

people can be forced to the unpleasant drudge work at low pay because they don't have special skills and there are always more unemployed people than job openings.

thus a stable equal pay system would also require a vast change in the educational system, re-organization of jobs, so that all jobs involve some skill, and everyone has some level of skill and expertise in something. only then would collective worker self-management be able to be a reality anyway.

thus right now people with higher skill levels can get higher pay simply because they have more power in the labor market. the capitalist market tends to be a system that allocates resources by power. the power of the capitalists over workers is of course a form of power, but even ability of skilled workers to get paid more is a (much weaker) form of power.

in the "lower stage of communism", as Marx called it, it has to be a system of workers management or it won't be any form of communism at all. Communism, whether lower or higher, is a classless society.

but coming out of the society that we live in, with its individualism and amoral self-centered tendencies, we can't simply provide everything to people without a requirement of work. if people earn by working, then there is the question of what merits remuneration. It seems to me that it would have to be not just hours of work (Marx's criterion) but also how harsh, onerous, unpleasant, dangerous it is. Or as economists would say, its disutility to the worker.

however, if we re-organize jobs so that everyone does some of the drudge work, dangerous or unpleasant or boring work, and everyone does some of the more desireable conceptual, planning, skilled work, then we might as well pay everyone the same per hour (as Marx suggested), but only on condition that we also provide child allowances separately. that's because if you have a single person and a single mother with 2 kids, the mother with 2 kids has more needs.

[OldMoney]

First I want to say that I dont think star trek has anything to do with communism, but in theory, do you think captian pikard made more money than ensign crusher? I dont! How are we supposed to live in a classless societey when one person is given more energy credits for thier labour than another person working to the best of thier abitlity? Under communism where the inefficienciey of capitolist ventures has long gone, and everything is avaliable to everyone what need would there be for higer or lower wages, or any wages at all. Im not saying that there wont be benifits to becoming a doctor vs a bin emptier, but said advantages will certainly not be monatary or any energy credit system thats put in place. IE picard has a more demanding job, but he also has more liberties to do what he wants, as well as prestige. We are all too atached to the system of wages and the coruption of money, after socialism transitions to communism we will need to break all chains of oppresion.

[Martin Blank]

We must also consider each man's value to society. For example, anyone can sweep floors.
But very few are capable of mastering the immense knowledge which a doctor must learn.
(Few would have the patience either, to study that hard)

There was a recent study in Britain (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SmartSpending/blog/page.aspx?post=1454130), where they measured the value to the economy of different jobs. I would think that a Congress of the Economy in a workers' republic could make a similar study across the entire spectrum of jobs to set industry and position scales for socially-necessary labor time, and lay the basis for a transition to a moneyless economy.

[Zanthorus]

I prefer not to use the word "wages" because it implies that a category of capitalist distribution is "eternal" and that all forms of payment for work are "wages".


Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"


I don't deny that there will be something-or-other prior to communism; I just deny that it will warrant being called a "stage" of communism simply by virtue of being implemented by communists.

You really are quite dense. It's not the "lower-stage" of communism because it's implemented by communists, it's the lower stage of communism because wage-labour, capital, class ("private") property etc have all been abolished. Communism does not consist of the slogans of 19th century utopian socialism.

[RATM-Eubie]

No, i dont believe a society can function like that. I believe in fair wages. And then a taxation system of progressive taxation.

[syndicat]

yeah, but what is "fair" in regard to wages? It can't be that people with more skills, credentials, education get paid more. that would be to reward them for their luck. to a large extent these things, in capitalism, are influenced by who your parents were, the school systems available to you.

also, there is significant social investment in your skills and knowledge, if you went to public educational systems. plus, when you do work, who you work with also affects the productivity of the place where you work.

so the social benefit derived from your work will be affected by things other than your own efforts, including investment in your skills, the people you work with, and various things that are sheer luck, such as the family and schools you went thru and so on. and luck is not your effort so why should you be rewarded for it?

[Robocommie]

yeah, but what is "fair" in regard to wages? It can't be that people with more skills, credentials, education get paid more. that would be to reward them for their luck. to a large extent these things, in capitalism, are influenced by who your parents were, the school systems available to you.

Sure, in capitalism, but under socialism? And even so, it doesn't change the fact that we're always going to have less people who are doctors or engineers than we have people working the lines.

I guess really, a lot of this is going to depend on the way a socialist economy is structured. If it's state-owned, then the question of what people will be paid is indeed a matter of universal concern, but if it's a syndicalist economy (which is my preference, personally) then it'll be a question for the members of the cooperative or collective to decide, by vote.

They ran into this problem in Argentina's reclaimed factory movement, some of the cooperatives decided to pay some people more, others decided everybody would be paid the same, but they always made those decisions democratically; some groups voted that certain individuals put more into the collective than the sum of their labor, because of the nature of their skills or position, and therefore deserved more wages, others decided everyone should be paid equally. I believe that might be the best way to determine it.

However, paying doctors and the like will still be something we'd have to decide because I think healthcare should be a nationalized industry, provided for free, not operated as cooperatives.

[anticap]

It's not the "lower-stage" of communism because it's implemented by communists, it's the lower stage of communism because wage-labour, capital, class ("private") property etc have all been abolished.

Then it's "communism," as I understand it.

[syndicat]

Sure, in capitalism, but under socialism? And even so, it doesn't change the fact that we're always going to have less people who are doctors or engineers than we have people working the lines.

but within capitalism one of the things revolutionary unionism should be working for...and used to in the early 20th century...is reduction in wage differentials, which implies that equal wages is the ideal.



I guess really, a lot of this is going to depend on the way a socialist economy is structured. If it's state-owned, then the question of what people will be paid is indeed a matter of universal concern, but if it's a syndicalist economy (which is my preference, personally) then it'll be a question for the members of the cooperative or collective to decide, by vote.


well, I'm a syndicalist (note my moniker, short for syndicalist cat). but I do not believe that syndicalism aims at a market socialist economy of competing collectives. on the contrary, historically revolutionary syndicalism has aimed at libertarian communism, which implies that all the means of production are owned by the whole society, and sort of subcontracted to workers to manage.

workers can decide on how to split up the pool of remuneration provided to them in exchange for the benefit they provide for the society, i guess, but what they are remunerated doesn't depend on them alone, but on how society has decided on remuneration, as the whole society owns the total output in a syndicalist-communist setup.

for example, if society decides to remunerate for effort, they can then allocate a pool of effort remuneration to a particular worker group to produce X. or if they decide on equal pay per hour, they can allocate a pool based on N hours of total work.

what a syndcialist-communist society cannot have is workers accruing surpluses based on revenue from sale of commodities.