Benefits of Equal Pay

[bleedingheart]

I am new here, so I have some pretty basic questions. Hope you can help.:)

Until communism becomes a reality, let's say we establish socialism in a certain nation. Will there be equal pay in this society, if not, will it not be the same as capitalism?

If there's equal pay, wouldn't everyone opt for easy jobs? Why would anyone work hard to become a doctor, when they can earn that much by doing some other easy job?:confused:

Finally, what are the advantages of equal pay in view of the whole economy, how will it affect other departments like prices etc.? Are there some extrinsic advantages on account of equal pay?

Sorry for the silly questions, but I am a little confused because most communist concepts are so different from what we traditionally learn about economics.:)

[Dr Mindbender]

you cant operate socialism in one country. Not in the revolutionary context at least. There are too many powerful capitalist nations and corporations with conflicting interests to the survival of socialism that they will resort to any dirty means to thwart it.

This is why it must be global, and if possible all at once.



If there's equal pay, wouldn't everyone opt for easy jobs? Why would anyone work hard to become a doctor, when they can earn that much by doing some other easy job?http://www.revleft.com/vb/benefits-equal-pay-t84970/revleft/smilies/confused1.gif

depends what you mean by 'pay' really. Payment in the capitalist context is derived from the beourgiose programme as marx put it ''stripping the halo from once noble professions in order to turn them into paid slaves''. Put simply, people will do a particular job for the personal rather than material reward.

As a technocrat, i envisage this being possible by phasing in automotive, extraneous means to replace humans in all forms of menial labour. I certainly dont want to be stuck on a production line when i could be doing something more enjoyable and productive with my time!

[BIG BROTHER]

Well actually Marx advocated for a socialist society to use labor vouchers, where you would get paid according to how much or how long you work. And just because its a socialist society it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will get paid equal. In fact Lenin rather argued for the maximum salary being no higher than 4 times the minimum salary.

[trivas7]

Sorry for the silly questions, but I am a little confused because most communist concepts are so different from what we traditionally learn about economics.:)
Thanks for the questions but they're somewhat tangential to the ideals of communism, which is to abolish wages altogether. Having said that I personally would opt for equal wages, but that's pretty meaningless in terms of different local social conditions. One need less dough to live in Wyoming than New York or Tokyo, no?

[Dr Mindbender]

Well actually Marx advocated for a socialist society to use labor vouchers, where you would get paid according to how much or how long you work. And just because its a socialist society it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will get paid equal. In fact Lenin rather argued for the maximum salary being no higher than 4 times the minimum salary.

without technocracy, it is difficult to see it working because everyone will want to do the 'cool' jobs but no-one will want to sweep the streets and clean toilets.

That said, the technology already exists to remove all people from the field of manual labour. The reason it doesnt happen right now is the market value of human wage slavery.

[Lost In Translation]

I am new here, so I have some pretty basic questions. Hope you can help.:)
Glad to do it.:)


Until communism becomes a reality, let's say we establish socialism in a certain nation. Will there be equal pay in this society, if not, will it not be the same as capitalism?
There shouldn't be equal pay. First off, wages in monetary value should be banned. Second of all, we stress the need for a classless, stateless society. If currency can't be abolished right away, then wages would still be paid in checks and all that. HOWEVER, there would be no difference (or very little) between people who work in the same occupation. Nor would there be a huge gap between people of different occupations (as we witness in capitalism).

If there's equal pay, wouldn't everyone opt for easy jobs? Why would anyone work hard to become a doctor, when they can earn that much by doing some other easy job?:confused:
In a socialist society (or communist), we wouldn't have equal pay, per se. Rather, we would have pay according to the importance of the job in relation to how it sustains society. Other factors to consider is how long they work. There really aren't easy jobs when every job in society is important in keeping it afloat.


Finally, what are the advantages of equal pay in view of the whole economy, how will it affect other departments like prices etc.? Are there some extrinsic advantages on account of equal pay?
Again, there isn't equal pay, but there will be smaller gaps between occupations. This will drive some prices down (but remember, currency is abolished). Because there is little difference in wages, we wouldn't have stuff like "oh man, that doctor makes 5 times more than me, but he works 1/2 the time as I do."


Sorry for the silly questions, but I am a little confused because most communist concepts are so different from what we traditionally learn about economics.:)
That's fine, it's better to ask than to immediately denounce communism, and question its practicality (as we've seen with some other posters)

[BIG BROTHER]

without technocracy, it is difficult to see it working because everyone will want to do the 'cool' jobs but no-one will want to sweep the streets and clean toilets.

That said, the technology already exists to remove all people from the field of manual labour. The reason it doesnt happen right now is the market value of human wage slavery.

that's true, i have been thinking that perhaps, the time voucher system could be sort of modified so people doing scarcer jobs, would get some sort of bonus. btw didn't they try this in cataluña

[ipollux]

The minimum wage in various parts of the U.S. continue to steadily rise, which only contributes to price inflation and laid off workers.

[NerdVincent]

If there's equal pay, wouldn't everyone opt for easy jobs? Why would anyone work hard to become a doctor, when they can earn that much by doing some other easy job?:confused:

Finally, what are the advantages of equal pay in view of the whole economy, how will it affect other departments like prices etc.? Are there some extrinsic advantages on account of equal pay?



For the easy job thing, I thought of to way to remediate:
(quote from another forum, I can't post the link yet):


" 1- Let's have the same weekly salary, but not the same wage. Explanation: it would be stupid for a surgeon to work 35h a week while a worker with an "easy" job would work 35h for the same salary. That's why I found an idea which respects one's works and the principles of an egalitarian society: let's just reduce the working hours of workers with hard jobs. So this way a dude working in a coal mine would have an higher wage than lawyer's.

2-Some claimed that a big problem would be the "missed years". It is true that after 8-9 years of college, a physician actually lost a decade of salary. That's why I'm for the renumeration of superior studies. After all, students work hard. Sometime. :unsure:"


For the advantages, it is easier:

-Social inequalities causes most violence: ghettos aren't hellish because people like to shoot at each other. It is frustration, jealousy, conscience that the "little white guy" screw them to make money.
It applies on an international level as well: illegal immigration, hate of the occidental world...

-End of exploitation by the bourgeoisie: we tend to think about the bourgeois-proletariat exploitation on a national scale. It may be true on a national scale nowaday, but it is way more real on an international level: America lives well because there is enough poor chinese to produce cheap goods. Frustration slowly build in exploited people's mind: an angry China would be quite a threat for occidental culture.

So for your comfort and security, please keep your seatbelt fasten. Or give us equal wages;).

[bleedingheart]

Thanks, everyone, for your response. Appreciate it.:)

I'll address other points when I get the time, but this one caught my eye.



In a socialist society (or communist), we wouldn't have equal pay, per se. Rather, we would have pay according to the importance of the job in relation to how it sustains society. Other factors to consider is how long they work. There really aren't easy jobs when every job in society is important in keeping it afloat.

But isn't this what capitalists are already doing? I mean, they always argue that all workers aren't equal, and that they get paid according to their contributions, value etc. Or, maybe, you're suggesting that the quantity of labor is important in communism, whereas quality is considered in capitalism?:( Which is why lawyers get paid more than plumbers, even though the latter puts in more labor.

Is this correct understanding?

Second, I still don't see how people will be able to choose their professions, if equality is imposed. Let's say lawyer=less effort=more money, worker in coal mines=more effort=less money. If we change this equation to lawyers getting less for less labor, and unskilled workers getting more money for more labor, what are the consequences?

[NerdVincent]

Second, I still don't see how people will be able to choose their professions, if equality is imposed. Let's say lawyer=less effort=more money, worker in coal mines=more effort=less money. If we change this equation to lawyers getting less for less labor, and unskilled workers getting more money for more labor, what are the consequences?
-Choosing their profession will be a matter of personal taste and capacity instead of greed.

But watch out, I didn't say that we would put higher salaries for job requiring more effort. I said that the work time would depend on the labor, but that the income at the end of the week would be the same for every job.
In mathematical term:
(work time)*(wage (per hour)) = weekly salary =constant

Consequence: end of social inequalities, and thus all the benefits stated above.

The difference with capitalism would be that the wage (per hour, not per week) wouldn't depend on plus-value or supply-and-demand anymore, but on labor. It would be the end of "the more employees you screw, the more money you get", but it would be "you work, you've got the pay".

Also, here is 2 other consequences:
-Since bosses cannot be paid more than the employees (consider them as administrators more than bosses), there would be no more decentralisation in the name of profit. End of unemployement too.
-Again, because no profit is possible, no more wicked pollution. If the state wants to apply a green policy, there would be no private business to beg or anything. Today, free market dude just decentralize their industries where they can get cheap workers and where they can pollute without fines.

[bleedingheart]

-Choosing their profession will be a matter of personal taste and capacity instead of greed.

But watch out, I didn't say that we would put higher salaries for job requiring more effort. I said that the work time would depend on the labor, but that the income at the end of the week would be the same for every job.
In mathematical term:
(work time)*(wage (per hour)) = weekly salary =constant


Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Will consumption go down on account of this? The lawyer or the doctor can afford expensive products/services under a capitalist system where they're paid more, but if they get equal pay, would the consumption of expensive products become difficult for all people?

If so, wouldn't that impede progress, because people will be forced to settle for less?

[Led Zeppelin]

The minimum wage in various parts of the U.S. continue to steadily rise, which only contributes to price inflation and laid off workers.

He was referring to equal wages in the context of a socialist society.

[bleedingheart]

Let me continue where I left off.:)

I said previously that consumption of expensive items may go down due to equal pay. From this, would it be reasonable to assume that the prices of these items will have to go down inevitably, to make it affordable to people?:cool: In that case, wouldn't demand go up, in which case how will the society sustain production?:( Will it be possible to increase supply to meet demand? Does that mean scarcity is a capitalist myth to increase profits?

Just thinking out loud, hopefully the comrades can provide some insights.:)

[trivas7]

But isn't this what capitalists are already doing? I mean, they always argue that all workers aren't equal, and that they get paid according to their contributions, value etc. Or, maybe, you're suggesting that the quantity of labor is important in communism, whereas quality is considered in capitalism?:( Which is why lawyers get paid more than plumbers, even though the latter puts in more labor.

Marx's in Capital talks re how in any factory there exists an average socially necessary time of production. One assumes that in a socialist economy this, not wages, would be the basis of labor vouchers. For details read Cockshot and Cottrell's Towards a New Socialism (http://www.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book/).

[NerdVincent]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Will consumption go down on account of this? The lawyer or the doctor can afford expensive products/services under a capitalist system where they're paid more, but if they get equal pay, would the consumption of expensive products become difficult for all people?

If so, wouldn't that impede progress, because people will be forced to settle for less?

Another principle of communism is the abolition of the supply-and-demand principles. Prices depends on the amount of work required to produce goods, not on how-can-I-screw-people tricks of "free market". The value of things would be radically changed.

But if you are talking of expensive products like luxurious cars, 10 feet wide tv or such, well little would change since only 1/10,000 of the people can buy them.

[Lost In Translation]

But if you are talking of expensive products like luxurious cars, 10 feet wide tv or such, well little would change since only 1/10,000 of the people can buy them.
But then would we need to have several companies selling similar products? Furthermore, do we need huge TVs and luxurious cars? With luxury cars, we get huge gas consumption, and with huge TVs, you don't necessarily get good quality (bad contrast ratio).

[NerdVincent]

Yeah of course. I think we could keep several compagnies selling similar products, or rather at different quality. If one doesn't mind buying a crappy car for better house, it is his choice. Communist must not fall into a "same car, same house, same food" way of thinking. People are still free to use their money as they wish.
But of course, luxury car are wortless, so lamborgini and ferarri industries will happily be turned into something more useful.

[politics student]

Yeah of course. I think we could keep several compagnies selling similar products, or rather at different quality. If one doesn't mind buying a crappy car for better house, it is his choice. Communist must not fall into a "same car, same house, same food" way of thinking. People are still free to use their money as they wish.
But of course, luxury car are wortless, so lamborgini and ferarri industries will happily be turned into something more useful.

Like production for new bus's to improve public transport. :D

I would argue that there is no difference of quality or any worth mentioning as most companies sell almost the same products maybe a slightly different design but its really a label they are selling just look at the fashion industry.

[NerdVincent]

Like production for new bus's to improve public transport. :D
Exactly! I absolutly think that the developpement of public transport is essential, environmentaly and economicaly speaking. Buses, subway, train... way more practical and cheaper than cars.


I would argue that there is no difference of quality or any worth mentioning as most companies sell almost the same products maybe a slightly different design but its really a label they are selling just look at the fashion industry.
Well it may depend on the product we're speaking of. If we're talking about food and most common goods like TV set and cars, I quite agree. But as a guitarist, I can argue that every guitar aren't of the same quality, and I wouldn't care to have a cheap TV, or no Tv at all, if I can have a good sounding guitar.
Actually, I think that some goods, like guitars, should be produced by voluntary artisans instead of industries. It's the kind of thing too personal to be produced under the same brand name or quality.