equitable specification in the labour force

[Zangetsu]

Kabuts's were quite brutal when it came to this sort of thing, obviously a society has certain needs which might not be adaquately performed by only those who actualy want to be in that position without some measure of co-opting (or coercion). Nurses, paramedics and doctors might not be problem jobs since these are seen as important work by society, who would want to be a train driver, im not talking about horrible jobs (like cleaning sewers), but jobs that just arent terribly meaningful and fulfulling... What if everyone just wants to work in one particular industry, who does the selecting as to who gets chosen...

Im just asking for a plausible answer of how this might work in a Communistic society, so that the society doesnt have to put undue pressure on individuals in an overtly prescriptive manner.

formulated slightly differantly, perhaps this is the crux of it:
How will competition for job satistfaction be accommodated? I want to remove the easy answer of: well this undesirable work can just be evenly dolled out; let us consider this issue as it pertains to work that require specific skill sets, taking years of study. Not everyone having the aptitude for performing these jobs that might disagree with people in varying degrees. Disdain for math and science might not correlate evenly with an individuals' aptitude in these subjects... Its all relative to the individual, and so now;- what mechanisms can be put in place to avoid the horrible dictatorial elements found in the Kabuts, where the collective simply needed a pharmacist, and so your personal interests aside, you have the aptitude and must get qualified in that field, for the greater good of the community.

Where is redstar2000? I wish I could hear his response to this... please comrades, I would like some more answers to this issue of mine.

[bezdomni]

"From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need."

[Zangetsu]

That might be the guiding principle comrade, but that bit of ideology doesnt solve the practical issues i describe. to borrow from bloody_capitalist_sham's post:


Under communism, this is not so. Marx's famous maxim of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

is the guiding principle of communism.

so the stripper would be stripping because it makes them happy, they would already receive what they desire.

unlike now, there wouldn't be sloppy performances, just good ones.

that is of course if stripping was desired in communism, which i don't imagine it would be.

So now, lets continue with this kindof scenario, replacing stripping with being a *clothing designer*. We cant all be clothing designers, but perhaps everyone wants to be a clothing designer, and none want to be involved in the actual process of manufacturing clothing. Obviously people need clothes to wear, its a need society has, but none want to be caught up in this relatively trivial, unprestigious work of sowing etc. Perhaps some forms of work just arent nearly as fulilling as others, and people in general are capable of doing both these types of work (types of work that is seen as prestigious or is more 'fun' aswell as work that is menial or relatively 'boring')... so now we have the scenario: we need 9 clothing makers to every 1 designer, most people are capable to do both jobs... How can compitition for more desirable jobs be managed, so that we live in a place where people can be fairly free in choosing their field of work aswell as society staying fully serviced.

Is it possible to make all forms of work comparably desirable, we cannot just assume that after the revolution all work will be?

I am a revolutionary Marxist myself... Just trying to think of possible solution to this 'issue' ive been faced with.

[Boriznov]

These kind of jobs that no one really wants to do would probably be each his turn. Like you are a doctor and once a week you have to be traindriver or something. Something like this would be an established idea. You would have to be qualified for it, if you can't drive a train then you wouldn't do it.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:57 pm
These kind of jobs that no one really wants to do would probably be each his turn. Like you are a doctor and once a week you have to be traindriver or something. Something like this would be an established idea. You would have to be qualified for it, if you can't drive a train then you wouldn't do it.
So the community sends a person to college for four years. They then send te person to medical school for three years. Then out to hospitals to learn on real peple under te supervision of doctors who themselves went through the process. It uses all these resources in doing so, while at the same time losing the contribution of that person who could be doing something else.

The the community says "We are now going to teach you drive trains." So all those resources expended to teach a person medicine, will now be tossed out the window so as to teach that person to drive a train.

What an incredible waste of resources the socialist community proposes.

Why not do it the way it is done in capitalist countries: If the community cannot find sufficient train drivers, raise the rate of compensation granted to the train drivers so as to attract workers for whom driving trains might be appealing?

Nah. It is too simple. It is far better for the community to send doctors to the subways, keep them from practicing medicine, all to better the community :rolleyes:

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:57 pm
These kind of jobs that no one really wants to do would probably be each his turn. Like you are a doctor and once a week you have to be traindriver or something. Something like this would be an established idea. You would have to be qualified for it, if you can't drive a train then you wouldn't do it.
I doubt this would be applied to everyone, like with some jobs which are more 'crutial'; surgeons with specialities for the greater good would not undergo these 'once a week' menial activities because of the importance of their work, making this sort of job highly desirable (because of the kindof status that goes along with the work).

We need pharmasists, but what if (although its a neccessary job) no one actualy wants to be a pharamist, everyone just wants to be a pharmacutical researcher and come up with new drugs, but actualy working at a pharamacy dispensing drugs is just not seen as appealing... so this subject is hardly taken up at universities/schools because there are so few positions to be a pharamacutical researcher... society needs pharamists, how can we avoid compelling people to take the subject? How do we make it comparably desirable to those other jobs that apear to be more 'fun'.

I dont think we will really need book keepers after the revolution... but im sure there are many jobs that are analogous to book keeping that are neccessary. I get the impression most people study this line of work because of the money, and its not a terribly satisfying job.. This kindof specialized work that requires a special skill set, that not just anyone can do... how do we avoid forcing people to learn for and perform these jobs?

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by ZX3+April 08, 2007 09:17 pm--> (ZX3 @ April 08, 2007 09:17 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 03:57 pm
These kind of jobs that no one really wants to do would probably be each his turn. Like you are a doctor and once a week you have to be traindriver or something. Something like this would be an established idea. You would have to be qualified for it, if you can't drive a train then you wouldn't do it.
So the community sends a person to college for four years. They then send te person to medical school for three years. Then out to hospitals to learn on real peple under te supervision of doctors who themselves went through the process. It uses all these resources in doing so, while at the same time losing the contribution of that person who could be doing something else.

The the community says "We are now going to teach you drive trains." So all those resources expended to teach a person medicine, will now be tossed out the window so as to teach that person to drive a train.

What an incredible waste of resources the socialist community proposes.

Why not do it the way it is done in capitalist countries: If the community cannot find sufficient train drivers, raise the rate of compensation granted to the train drivers so as to attract workers for whom driving trains might be appealing?

Nah. It is too simple. It is far better for the community to send doctors to the subways, keep them from practicing medicine, all to better the community :rolleyes: [/b]
Well, im rather conservative when it comes to socialist imperatives... I havent thought about it excessively, but i dont see why having differant pay scales would be disasterous to the revolution... As long as no-one can appriopriate the means of production and attempt to pay others a 'wage' or 'salary' in exchange for their labour I dont see a problem. Simply put: the 'cost' of labour must always be equity in the 'business', equity that carries with it an equal voting right with every other worker in the enterprise. So in this way, we will see lots of public companies, whose shareholders are the workers, and so these 'companies' will arrange themselves to their workers benefit, and not their exploitation, decreasing the work hours, increasing the number of workers 'employed' by the enterprise. But that does not mean, that work for one of these 'public companies' will not be more appealing than anothers... and then how will this demand and supply issue as it applies to neccessary job posts be resolved, perhaps offering more remuneration is an acceptable course?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 03:22 pm
"From each, according to their ability, to each, according to their need."

great more useless dogma


These kind of jobs that no one really wants to do would probably be each his turn. Like you are a doctor and once a week you have to be traindriver or something. Something like this would be an established idea. You would have to be qualified for it, if you can't drive a train then you wouldn't do it.

how are you going to find the time and recources to train all these people to take on multiple jobs?

[Jazzratt]

Automation. Fuck off.

[colonelguppy]

you're going to automate the process of giving doctors and train conductors real life experience?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 04:35 pm

Simply put: the 'cost' of labour must always be equity in the 'business', equity that carries with it an equal voting right with every other worker in the enterprise. So in this way, we will see lots of public companies, whose shareholders are the workers, and so these 'companies' will arrange themselves to their workers benefit, and not their exploitation, decreasing the work hours, increasing the number of workers 'employed' by the enterprise.
The "cost" of labor is far more than than simply equity in the business. Its a cost in the sense that that worker cannot be in two places at once; while he is working and producing Product A, he canniot be producing Product B.

Why should these companies, or any company, organise themselves for the betterment of the workers working there? Isn't the entire point of the company to produce items needed and wanted by the community? Should not the company be organised so as to best satisfy those needs and wants of the consumers, and not the needs and wants of the producers?

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by ZX3+April 09, 2007 01:47 pm--> (ZX3 @ April 09, 2007 01:47 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 04:35 pm

Simply put: the 'cost' of labour must always be equity in the 'business', equity that carries with it an equal voting right with every other worker in the enterprise. So in this way, we will see lots of public companies, whose shareholders are the workers, and so these 'companies' will arrange themselves to their workers benefit, and not their exploitation, decreasing the work hours, increasing the number of workers 'employed' by the enterprise.
The "cost" of labor is far more than than simply equity in the business. Its a cost in the sense that that worker cannot be in two places at once; while he is working and producing Product A, he canniot be producing Product B.

Why should these companies, or any company, organise themselves for the betterment of the workers working there? Isn't the entire point of the company to produce items needed and wanted by the community? Should not the company be organised so as to best satisfy those needs and wants of the consumers, and not the needs and wants of the producers? [/b]
This is all besides the point really, but I will go on to explain my view on the objectives of the revolution in this regard. 'Employees' are the community, and work is a vital part of every member of the communities life. Believing that life begins and ends after the work day is nonsensical. Why not treat people like consumers in the work place, isnt that giving people real satisfaction that mere products and services can never appease. All producers are themselves consumers at the end of their shift, why not lets have a more balanced system where their needs and desires are catered for not just when their shift ends.

We dont need unemployment, if we incorperated all these non-workers into the system, everyone would work less and have more spare time.. whats spare time worth to you as an individual? I would rather have a 4 hour work day if it can be managed, I think life would be much more fulfilling if such arrangements were made possible by economic positioning... ie. If companies operated to the benefit of their employees and not profit (the point about profit anyway is that it someone helps everyone achieve their wants and needs, communism is simply a more direct system in achieving this end in making the contentment of workers the primary objective of 'business's').

[RNK]

I feel there is enough interest in all of society for almost any job. Personally I'm a little conflicted about this myself.

I do believe, however, that there is general interest in all jobs. I can't think of any specific job that someone wouldn't want to pursue for a living. Really, though, there are several ways to deal with it. The first is an industrial army controlled by the people; conscious of what is needed, workers can be assigned by society as a whole to whatever labour sector. Another strategy could be the obvious "incentive", particularly "temporary" incentive; if a particular sector is needed, its labour value could be increased.

Anyway I'm not an economist. It's an interesting question and I look forward to what people have to say.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:32 am
This is all besides the point really, but I will go on to explain my view on the objectives of the revolution in this regard. 'Employees' are the community, and work is a vital part of every member of the communities life. Believing that life begins and ends after the work day is nonsensical. Why not treat people like consumers in the work place, isnt that giving people real satisfaction that mere products and services can never appease. All producers are themselves consumers at the end of their shift, why not lets have a more balanced system where their needs and desires are catered for not just when their shift ends.

We dont need unemployment, if we incorperated all these non-workers into the system, everyone would work less and have more spare time.. whats spare time worth to you as an individual? I would rather have a 4 hour work day if it can be managed, I think life would be much more fulfilling if such arrangements were made possible by economic positioning... ie. If companies operated to the benefit of their employees and not profit (the point about profit anyway is that it someone helps everyone achieve their wants and needs, communism is simply a more direct system in achieving this end in making the contentment of workers the primary objective of 'business's').
The consumer and worker are not the same person. How many cars will the auto worker really need? How many computer the computer builder?

There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about making the workforce and happy and content. But that can never be the PRIME objective of the company. And this is because the purpose of the company is not to proide people with work. Its to provide goods and services to those who want and need them.

Companies, it cannot be stressed enough, need to benefit the consumers, not the workers at that company.

[RNK]

And this is because the purpose of the company is not to proide people with work. Its to provide goods and services to those who want and need them.

Wrong again. Please provide a single example of a millionaire or company that started with someone saying "Hm, you know, I bet this would really help society.." rather than someone saying "Hm, you know, I bet this would make me a lot of money.."

If you still think that companies work for the "benefit of consumers", you really need to get out into the world, because that is an incredibly naive and incredibly false assumption.

[colonelguppy]

if the results are that a millionaire makes millions and provides a needed good or service to the community, what difference does it make where intentions lay?

[Janus]

Automation could be one solution for those jobs which are still necessary yet may not be as desired as others. Another simpler possibility could be simply dividing the unskilled work among everyone. However, the main problem with many of these jobs currently is still social stigma and I would think that once much of this stigma has been eliminated in a communist society, people may not be as unwilling as one would think.


who does the selecting as to who gets chosen...
If one industry happens to get overcrowded, it will be less likely that more people will want to "cram in". Most likely, people will see the limited job opportunity in that field and move on to another career that actually needs people.

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:44 pm
Automation could be one solution for those jobs which are still necessary yet may not be as desired as others. Another simpler possibility could be simply dividing the unskilled work among everyone. However, the main problem with many of these jobs currently is still social stigma and I would think that once much of this stigma has been eliminated in a communist society, people may not be as unwilling as one would think.


who does the selecting as to who gets chosen...
If one industry happens to get overcrowded, it will be less likely that more people will want to "cram in". Most likely, people will see the limited job opportunity in that field and move on to another career that actually needs people.
Im not so much talking about the unskilled work (that is easy to divide), but the skilled work which is undesirable... work analogous to book keeping.. how will society co-opt people into studying and skilling up for these undersirable posts?

[RNK]

Because he only provides it insofar as he profits from it, and his entire business ethic is based on his own benefit. He only exploits the needs of society; he does not act to fulfill a need. He may provide a commodity for society, but that commodity always comes at a price -- beyond that of mere money.

[Rawthentic]

if the results are that a millionaire makes millions and provides a needed good or service to the community, what difference does it make where intentions lay?
And because he profits off of the product that his workforce created, not that he created.

If it doesn't make him money, like RNK correctly pointed out, he wouldn't give a rats ass for how useful for society it would be.

[Janus]

What is desirable and undesirable is really a subjective determination. Some people may not hold the same reservations as you towards certain jobs. Currently, there is a social stigma against certain types of seemingly "boring" jobs but I would think that with such stigmas removed in a communist society, certain types of people would still be attracted to such jobs whether out of keen interest or because the hours/schedules are more fluid,etc.

[Janus]

No reason to have two threads on the same exact topic (it's also not a good idea to post questions about communism in OI).

Merged

[Zangetsu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 11:48 pm
What is desirable and undesirable is really a subjective determination. Some people may not hold the same reservations as you towards certain jobs. Currently, there is a social stigma against certain types of seemingly "boring" jobs but I would think that with such stigmas removed in a communist society, certain types of people would still be attracted to such jobs whether out of keen interest or because the hours/schedules are more fluid,etc.
In my country there is a lack of civil engineers currently, Government is incentivising their training at universities by making it cheaper to study, salaries are going up because of their demand which goes beyond their supply... when society is not fixated on conspicuous consumption and rather their 'quality of life', which is more dependant on things like the content of their time spent, ie. their work experience; how are people going to be placated into 'sacrificing' themselves to the study and work of civil engineering, when, its an office job, and most people with the aptitude for civil engineering want an outdoors job, or one that involves socializing with people, like something in the service industry...

Im not talking about social stigma so much as just the actualy content of the work experience... of course people are differant and enjoy differant sorts of activities, but obviously its going to be hard for people to always be doing what they consider the most enjoyable/fulfilling work... how will this tension be resolved.

formulated slightly differantly, perhaps this is the crux of it:
How will competition for job satistfaction be accommodated? I want to remove the easy answer of: well this undesirable work can just be evenly dolled out; let us consider this issue as it pertains to work that require specific skill sets, taking years of study. Not everyone having the aptitude for performing these jobs that might disagree with people in varying degrees. Disdain for math and science might not correlate evenly with an individuals' aptitude in these subjects... Its all relative to the individual, and so now;- what mechanisms can be put in place to avoid the horrible dictatorial elements found in the Kabuts, where the collective simply needed a pharmacist, and so your personal interests aside, you have the aptitude and must get qualified in that field, for the greater good of the community.

Where is redstar2000? I wish I could hear his response to this... please comrades, I would like some more answers to this issue of mine.