Pay for performance system

[Lowtech]

A true pay for performance system would produce a society more like a workers state. Alone, it would be economically sound, yet to be fully humane, it must include provisions for the sick, disabled and elderly.

Observing our current society, income inequality of this magnitude cannot be explained by genetic variation or notions of superiority, therefore this is not due to varying degrees of productivity among individuals, rather a scheme or mechanism is being used by capitalists to retain value they do not produce themselves; this mechanism is profit, a market economy and alienating the worker from the infrastructure of production.

[Dean]

A true pay for performance system would produce a society more like a workers state. Alone, it would be economically sound, yet to be fully humane, it must include provisions for the sick, disabled and elderly.

Observing our current society, income inequality of this magnitude cannot be explained by genetic variation or notions of superiority, therefore this is not due to varying degrees of productivity among individuals, rather a scheme or mechanism is being used by capitalists to retain value they do not produce themselves; this mechanism is profit, a market economy and alienating the worker from the infrastructure of production.

The inequality isn't new. Most of the property accumulations are not new. They are handed down from slavery, early 1900s fascism, war Keynesianism, corporatism, etc.

The problem is that performance is actually subjective. And consumer payment for that performance is also subjective; it is based on the disproportionate funds that consumers bring to the market. Many values do not have the backing of funds, but without satisfying them, much more harm will come to society.

The closest approximation of the socialist mode of production, assuming that wage labor persists, is the shared possession of the means of production by workers who also share in the fruits of production.

[Lowtech]

The inequality isn't new. Most of the property accumulations are not new. They are handed down from slavery, early 1900s fascism, war Keynesianism, corporatism, etc.capital has no physicality, rather it is a fiction produced out of artificial scarcity. due to artificial scarcity and alienation, people's ability to sustain themselves is stolen psychologically. they are then economically compelled by artificial scarcity to rent themselves to those who appear to hold "capital."
The problem is that performance is actually subjective. And consumer payment for that performance is also subjective; it is based on the disproportionate funds that consumers bring to the market.market is a social construct, it has no effect on the real physical value of anything. this is why value in a "market" appears subjective or otherwise illogical; it is illogical; it is an inaccurate measurement of value. no market based system will be sufficient to sustain a civilization.


Many values do not have the backing of funds, but without satisfying them, much more harm will come to society.

The closest approximation of the socialist mode of production, assuming that wage labor persists, is the shared possession of the means of production by workers who also share in the fruits of production. the fruits of production is the commodity itself, not what appears to be gained based on a fictitious "market value."

[MarxSchmarx]

The inequality isn't new. Most of the property accumulations are not new. They are handed down from slavery, early 1900s fascism, war Keynesianism, corporatism, etc.capital has no physicality, rather it is a fiction produced out of artificial scarcity. due to artificial scarcity and alienation, people's ability to sustain themselves is stolen psychologically. they are then economically compelled by artificial scarcity to rent themselves to those who appear to hold "capital."It has become so, but it was not always thus. Also, even under present arrangements, rentier profits and thinjgs like mineral rights remain quite physical.



The problem is that performance is actually subjective. And consumer payment for that performance is also subjective; it is based on the disproportionate funds that consumers bring to the market.market is a social construct, it has no effect on the real physical value of anything. this is why value in a "market" appears subjective or otherwise illogical; it is illogical; it is an inaccurate measurement of value. no market based system will be sufficient to sustain a civilization.Subjective doesn't mean illogical, but I think Dean's point wasn't so much that markets are inherently material, but that insofar as they are a mechanism by which performance is evaluated, they manage to reflect the subjectivity inherent in performance mechanism.

Just to give a very crude example. I like Bach, so I pay for a violinist to play Bach. But if you prefer Mozart, and you think his failure to play Mozart is an indication of poor performance. And you can pay more, then the violinist plays Mozart, so his "performance" metric improves. How does one "objectively" decide whether the violinist should focus on improving his ability to play Bach or Mozart?




Many values do not have the backing of funds, but without satisfying them, much more harm will come to society.

The closest approximation of the socialist mode of production, assuming that wage labor persists, is the shared possession of the means of production by workers who also share in the fruits of production. the fruits of production is the commodity itself, not what appears to be gained based on a fictitious "market value."But I think the issue is how should people be compensated and here it's not a matter of what you put up as a commodity.

Imagine I live near a spring. Now suppose I am the only one that knows about it how to extract water from it, and the water from this spring cures all sorts of ailments. then if I get a single bottle of water from this spring, it will be quite valuable. Now imagine there are 100 other people collecting drinking water from that spring and bottling it all the time, and I persist in collecting spring water in teh same way. then although the commodity I produce (the single bottle of water) appears quite superflous if you judged my renumeration on commodity alone I should get the same renumeration under both circumstances. Thus the value of a commodity is contingent on its context, so to base pay on commodity per se seems unreasonable.

[Lowtech]

It has become so, but it was not always thus. Also, even under present arrangements, rentier profits and thinjgs like mineral rights remain quite physical.

Subjective doesn't mean illogical, but I think Dean's point wasn't so much that markets are inherently material, but that insofar as they are a mechanism by which performance is evaluated, they manage to reflect the subjectivity inherent in performance mechanism.from the perspective of the underlying physical process of economics, market value is very illogical. if all participating members of society contribute, benefit should equal contribution; this does not occur in a market economy; even when there is enough of a resource or commodity to be distributed among all individuals, this does not happen, commodities are distributed based on market interests, not human interests. resources are moved based on market value or more accurately exchange value, not human need. the market exists to maximize exchange value for commodities of the cheapest production cost; a facade to hide artificial scarcity and subjugation
Just to give a very crude example. I like Bach, so I pay for a violinist to play Bach. But if you prefer Mozart, and you think his failure to play Mozart is an indication of poor performance. And you can pay more, then the violinist plays Mozart, so his "performance" metric improves. How does one "objectively" decide whether the violinist should focus on improving his ability to play Bach or Mozart?firstly, what you are describing is not a principle that applies to logistics involving the moving of massive units of a resource based on need, as need on grand scales follows a very predictable pattern based on uniform need among people. e. g. logistical requirements for sustaining a human being. secondly, the changing wants of individuals is not an axiom of economics. your free choice among resources available to you does not change predictable and calculable logistical requirements of sustaining all members of a civilization in totality.
But I think the issue is how should people be compensated and here it's not a matter of what you put up as a commodity.

Imagine I live near a spring. Now suppose I am the only one that knows about it how to extract water from it, and the water from this spring cures all sorts of ailments. then if I get a single bottle of water from this spring, it will be quite valuable. Now imagine there are 100 other people collecting drinking water from that spring and bottling it all the time, and I persist in collecting spring water in teh same way. then although the commodity I produce (the single bottle of water) appears quite superflous if you judged my renumeration on commodity alone I should get the same renumeration under both circumstances. Thus the value of a commodity is contingent on its context, so to base pay on commodity per se seems unreasonable.you're essentially describing the social construct we refer to as the market. value based on market value or exchange value will never reflect actual value (as a usable commodity) that propagates an economy. with a market social construct, the worker pays for things twice. we pay for it with labor as participants in economy; e.g. a public utility who's intended purpose is to process resources into usable commodities, then we pay for these same commodities again with our already insufficient compensation. the lifespan of a commodity's value begins and ends with the production process. unless its part of the building of machines. the logistical necessity of value is evaluated with this question: is there enough value left in a commodity after producing it with current technology that it remains viable in meeting a need with the least amount of waste? this paradigm of what value a commodity takes on once it propagates within an economy ("market value") is used as a tool to entangle us in a social construct leading to forced dependence on a system designed to subjugate the many.

[MarxSchmarx]

from the perspective of the underlying physical process of economics, market value is very illogical. if all participating members of society contribute, benefit should equal contribution; this does not occur in a market economy; even when there is enough of a resource or commodity to be distributed among all individuals, this does not happen, commodities are distributed based on market interests, not human interests. resources are moved based on market value or more accurately exchange value, not human need. the market exists to maximize exchange value for commodities of the cheapest production cost; a facade to hide artificial scarcity and subjugation



the problem is concepts like "benefit" "contribution" etc.. are inherently subective. Moreover, your argument betrays several hidden assumption. For example, you assume that "human interests", "human need" etc... are the "logical" basis by which economies should operate. Yet you give no credible reason for making this interpretation


firstly, what you are describing is not a principle that applies to logistics involving the moving of massive units of a resource based on need, as need on grand scales follows a very predictable pattern based on uniform need among people. e. g. logistical requirements for sustaining a human being. secondly, the changing wants of individuals is not an idiom of economics. your free choice among resources available to you does not change predictable and calculable logistical requirements of sustaining all members of a civilization in totality.


Although I'm not really sure I understand any of what you are saying, the problem with meeting need alone is that man can no more live on fulfilling his needs than he can live on bread alone. Second, your claim about the futility of individual capriciousness misses the point. If the currency of economics is not the aggregated desires of individuals, then there is no basis for having a planned economy; feudalism for instance suffices according to your criteria because most crude means of reproduction of labor are by and large satisfied.



you're essentially describing the social construct we refer to as the market. value based on market value or exchange value will never reflect actual value (as a usable commodity) that propagates an economy. with a market social construct, the worker pays for things twice. we pay for it with labor as participants in economy; e.g. a public utility who's intended purpose is to process resources into usable commodities, then we pay for these same commodities again with our already insufficient compensation. the lifespan of a commodity's value begins and ends with the production process. unless its part of the building of machines. the logistical necessity of value is evaluated with this question: is there enough value left in a commodity after producing it with current technology that it remains viable in meeting a need with the least amount of waste? this paradigm of what value a commodity takes on once it propagates within an economy ("market value") is used as a tool to entangle us in a social construct leading to forced dependence on a system designed to subjugate the many.

Again, you appear to be choosing deliberately obfuscatory prose, but if I understand more or less what you are saying, you have no more reason than I or anyone else to believe multifaceted use value of a good will not disappear after capitalism. The duplicate use value of a knife both as an eating utensil and as an opener of boxes arises out of material necessities, entirely independent of its mere role in satisfying a basic need (indeed, were this the sole criteria a stone axe will saffice) . this will be true under both socialism and capitalism

[Lowtech]

the problem is concepts like "benefit" "contribution" etc.. are inherently subective. Moreover, your argument betrays several hidden assumption. For example, you assume that "human interests", "human need" etc... are the "logical" basis by which economies should operate. Yet you give no credible reason for making this interpretation shouldn't it be self evident that an economy is at its most funimental humans as a whole processing resources into usable commodites? Humans build and produce out of necessity. Artificial scarcity is not conducive to this. it runs against the fact that humans participate in an economy out of necessity. I am not implying that economy should operate based on need, I am stating that it does, while in the context of capitalism, this operation functions under the burden of artificial scarcity.
Although I'm not really sure I understand any of what you are saying, the problem with meeting need alone is that man can no more live on fulfilling his needs than he can live on bread alone. I never said to sustain people based on the minimum, rather to fully utilize all value propagating in an economy. this cannot occur within a system that produces and utilizes artificial scarcity.
Second, your claim about the futility of individual capriciousness misses the point. If the currency of economics is not the aggregated desires of individuals, then there is no basis for having a planned economy; feudalism for instance suffices according to your criteria because most crude means of reproduction of labor are by and large satisfied. desires, wants, choices, etc are noise in a mathematical sense that does not reflect need. allowing "aggregate desires" to decided how and where resources are moved on larger scales is rediculous. it is the implication that the market paradigm is somehow fundimental to economics. this is not the case. the noise of changing desires are satisfied by allowing the individual to build a chair to his liking, to customize a PC as he wishes. while the movement of resources on massive scales is dictated by uniform, calculable and predictable need.
Again, you appear to be choosing deliberately obfuscatory prose, but if I understand more or less what you are saying, you have no more reason than I or anyone else to believe multifaceted use value of a good will not disappear after capitalism. The duplicate use value of a knife both as an eating utensil and as an opener of boxes arises out of material necessities, entirely independent of its mere role in satisfying a basic need (indeed, were this the sole criteria a stone axe will saffice) . this will be true under both socialism and capitalismyou're advocating trade and implying that it is an axiom of economics. this is false. if you chose to trade, do so, but don't pretend it is required to process resources into usuable commodities. nothing more is required to sustain a civilization.

Being that markets, trade, currencies and artificial scarcity do not serve to improve that simple process and in fact serve instead to interfere with and reduce it's effectiveness, we must realize these things have no practicality.