Socialism and capitalism compared - Wages

[Wubbaz]

First off, I know that the term "wage" would be different in socialism or simply not exist, but for simplicity purposes I will use that term. In other words, the term "wage" will be used for describing the reward one gets from labouring.

In a future socialist society, wages will be (according to Marx) determined by the phrase "To each according to his contribution". If I understand this correctly, the more worth of labour you contribute to society, the more you will recieve back from society.

Question 1 - Will this mean that, the more skilled your labour power is, the more you will recieve back from society? Example: John works for 10 hours and recieves 20$. Ben works for the same amount of hours as John did (10), but recieves only 15$ because John's labour power was more skilled than Ben's.

If the answer to question 1 is yes, then how smaller will the income gap between a doctor and a un-educated worker be in socialism? As I see it, capitalism gives wages according to supply and demand. Doctors recieve a high wage because they are lesser in supply than un-educated workers. They recieve higher wages because of the fact that their labour power is more skilled than that of the un-skilled factory worker. If you follow this logic, then here comes the last question:

Question 2 - Won't there still be massive income gap between a factory worker and a doctor in socialism? And, if not, then why would the income gap be smaller than it is now?

Thank you very much in advance.

[Psy]

Ideally communism would skill all workers and worker rotation would mean workers won't be spending all their working lives doing unskilled labor, especially with the embrace of automation of medial tasks.

Thus the factory workers would have the means to become engineers, and nurses would have the means to become doctors yet once they make it they would not be above being asked to do less skilled labor.

So why would workers in a communist society bother to strive for being more a skilled worker? Mastery, it is a human drive to master a discipline and constantly improve ones skills.

[SeattleRainn]

In a future socialist society, wages will be (according to Marx) determined by the phrase "To each according to his contribution". If I understand this correctly, the more worth of labour you contribute to society, the more you will recieve back from society.

Question 1 - Will this mean that, the more skilled your labour power is, the more you will recieve back from society? Example: John works for 10 hours and recieves 20$. Ben works for the same amount of hours as John did (10), but recieves only 15$ because John's labour power was more skilled than Ben's.

If the answer to question 1 is yes, then how smaller will the income gap between a doctor and a un-educated worker be in socialism? As I see it, capitalism gives wages according to supply and demand. Doctors recieve a high wage because they are lesser in supply than un-educated workers. They recieve higher wages because of the fact that their labour power is more skilled than that of the un-skilled factory worker. If you follow this logic, then here comes the last question:

Question 2 - Won't there still be massive income gap between a factory worker and a doctor in socialism? And, if not, then why would the income gap be smaller than it is now?

Thank you very much in advance.

Well, I know for union Boeing, they pay a flat starting wage to everyone. With continuing education and years of experience you get wage increases, eventually capping out.
Same for flooring union, except the starting wage can vary depending on skill level. A 'journeyman' installer would start in the 20 per hour range whereas an 'apprentice' would start 12-15 ph range. Both have the option of pay increase by taking offered workshops and certification classes.

I think for some professions, being paid based on skill is reasonable. A doctor should make more than a fast food worker... but the fast food worker, and others who hold low paying (yet important) jobs should at the very least be paid a living wage. I'm not sure I support a full "socialist society"... but, I do believe we should be less 'anti-social' and help our fellow Americans who are in dire straights.
And I'm not sure how a "living" wage would work either. In my State, if you have family of 4 you need to make a minimum of 250 a day to pay the rent, utilities, food, laundry soap ... etc, or you WILL be asking for some kind of assistance. So maybe it can be adjustable according to where people live.

:: shrug :: Just my two cents.

[Wubbaz]

Psy - I am talking about the mechanics of "wages" under socialism - not communism. Also, I would argue that it is limited how many unskilled jobs that could be entirely mechanized/done by robots, at least during the socialist stage of society. In this thread, I am looking for an explanation for why the income gap between a very high-skilled laborer and an unskilled worker would be smaller in socialism. Of course, the society would make sure that everyone has their needs for food, clothing, housing and other basic neccesities satisfied. Still, wouldn't the income gap be huge? And wouldn't this gap result in social problems between low-income and high-income "classes"?

[Post-Something]

Psy - I am talking about the mechanics of "wages" under socialism - not communism. Also, I would argue that it is limited how many unskilled jobs that could be entirely mechanized/done by robots, at least during the socialist stage of society. In this thread, I am looking for an explanation for why the income gap between a very high-skilled laborer and an unskilled worker would be smaller in socialism. Of course, the society would make sure that everyone has their needs for food, clothing, housing and other basic neccesities satisfied. Still, wouldn't the income gap be huge? And wouldn't this gap result in social problems between low-income and high-income "classes"?

This is a good question, and although I don't really know the answer, I will try a couple guesses:

1. I don't think the difference in income between professionals like doctors and lawyers, skilled workers like miners and steelworkers, and unskilled laborers would be that different. You still want to create the incentive for people to invest all those years into becoming, say, a doctor.

2. There are a number of factors which are not really preventable when it comes to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. For example, since women have taken a more active role in the marketplace, you will find in most western societies a group of very well educated women with very well paying careers. These women are likely to marry similar men, and as such have a huge combined private wealth, compared to a couple who both do not work and have no further education. This is the kind of development which is very difficult to counteract.

3. If there is a significant reduction in income differences, it will be because big businesses will be hampered quite a bit. Not too much profit to make when you're competing against the state.

[Dogs On Acid]

Wages would possibly be lower than in 1st world countries for counterpart high-paid jobs like anything related to medicine or entertainment or science. But, this is irrelevant due to free education, healthcare, public transportation, etc.

Lower paid jobs like (depending on the country) construction, till jobs, cleaning, etc. would be either the same or higher paid when we take into account the free services I stated above.

But this all depends on the economy, the power of the currency, and many other factors.

[Rafiq]

They were a hell of a lot lower (Living standards too) than the western countries. But, they were also a lot better than 3rd world countries.

[Dogs On Acid]

They were a hell of a lot lower (Living standards too) than the western countries. But, they were also a lot better than 3rd world countries.

I wonder why they couldn't compete with western living standards by the 1950'/60's :confused:

[Rafiq]

I wonder why they couldn't compete with western living standards by the 1950'/60's :confused:

Well, when you have a degenerating, war torn, 20-30 year old only developing country, you really can't expect much.

I mean compare the USA after 30 years.

[Rodrigo]

I have a text (in Portuguese) by I. Smirnov called "The Living Conditions in Capitalist Countries and in the USSR", from 1948 or the beginning 1949. It's a polemic with some guy called André Pierre.

One common way anticommunists use to prove the "failure" of communism in providing better living conditions to the working class is the following logic: "The worker Vassili Ivanov, from the automobile factory XYZ, in Moscow, can buy with his monthly wage less consume goods than the worker Joe Kupovits, from the factory River Rouge, of Ford Motor Company of Dearborn".

According to I. Smirnov, this statement has seven fundamental gaps and one secondary gap:

1st) If Vassili Ivanov is a Soviet citizen and Joe Kupovits is a US citizen, by no means they are exclusive representatives of their countries. There are also other categories of workers like the peasants and the intellectuals, and even unemployed people and shoeshiners (these last, truly, exclusive representatives from capitalist countries).

2) If Vassili Ivanov and Joe Kupovits are white skin citizens, but they have brothers "with color", yellow or black, they should not be forgotten.

3) If the consuming goods are indispensable to life, there are, however, other things so indispensable like them, like the resting, medical treatments, instruction, books, and it would be interesting to establish some comparisons: how many books can obtain a kolkhoz kirguis and a black agricultural worker from Louisiana (the translation of the works of Victor Hugo, for example, or an encyclopedia), how many times they gone to the theater and how many months of vacation they could obtain.

4) If Vassili Ivanov and Joe Kupovits, both male, have rights to the benefits of their respective regimes, the women equally aspire to those benefits. The comparison must not, thus, sacrifice them.

5) If the monthly wage offers an incontestable interest, it doesn't cover, however, the maintenance of a man during his entire life, from the childhood to the oldness. It's necessary not to forget the invalid, the children of the elders, who doesn't work, neither receive wages.

6) If Vassili Ivanon and Joe Kupovits are today, possibly, celibates, there could be a day they become family fathers and even of a numerous family. How will they (and theirs) live?

7) If we elevate recognition of all the importance to this present situation, the worker makes the question of knowing how will be tomorrow, what is reserved for his/her future: increase or decrease of acquisitive capability, stability in the job or unemployment, etc. It's a must to compare the PERSPECTIVES.

and the secondary gap) André Pierre describes Joe Kupovits as having at home: gas, electricity, telephone, an auto and wants to acquire a terrain to build a house, he's secure against accidents and illnesses, has four sons in his encumbrance, that is, he lives perfectly well and happy. And in USSR "it's necessary to be at least an enterprise chief, high employee, writer, artist or Communist Party director to have your car and your home", "except for a minority of privileged, the level of worker's lives are conserved much lower in USSR, and, anyway, is much inferior to that of American workers".
In a certain "Washington's Letter" entitled "Opulent and miserable America", from the special correspondent from "Le Monde" in the United States, Sir Maurice Ferro. In this letter, published on February 7, 1948, two months before the Sir André Pierre's article, we read:

"The opulent America, the America of the automobile and the automatic "individual" washing machine, is one more caption which fades out when we touch it. If in fact existed an automobile for each 3 persons, why the subway, buses and trams are always full? The truth is another. If theoretically nothing lacks, if abundance patents itself in the shop showcases, it's nevertheless necessary to have the means to buy everything stumbled upon our sights. Well! The dollar's reign is not the republic of the rich."

During "Stakhanovism" in USSR, it was common for a worker in lower hierarchy earn more than worker in higher hierarchies, for example a machine operator earning more than the factory directors.