Meritocratic advancement system

  1. NikitaUtiu
    Advancement in technocracy is based on a meritocratic value of the individual and I want your ideas about this kind of system and how you would design it.
  2. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    Everyone would receive an equal ration of goods and services, which would be equal to their ability to physically consume such. This means each person would be able to consume as much of whatever they wanted, although they would no longer be able to own whatever they wanted. It also means that the profit incentive would be eliminated. Although people wouldn't be able to own an unlimited number of things, anything that they were using for a sufficient amount of time would be considered "personal items". This would include things like your house or your clothing, but not things like your car, which sits parked for 95% of the time as a result of it being privately owned. Anything not considered "personal items" would be free for anyone to use.

    Everyone would contribute an equal share of time and energy in operating society. How is this accomplished? Education would be free and mandatory, including college. The economy would be steady-state, so we would know in advance what % of the population to train for a particular field. The number of students admitted into a particular field would be determined by society's need for particular kinds of work and the student's qualifications (test scores, experience, recommendations, etc).

    All the "dirty work" would be automated to the degree possible or eliminated through improved efficiency. Any remaining dirty work would be equally divided among the whole population.

    If someone refused to work, their "distribution card" would be deactivated and they could no longer obtain any goods or services. Those unable to work as the result of a disability would be completely cared for and would suffer no loss of income.

    Each Industry will be managed by a meritocratic hierarchy of worker volunteers. As someone displayed extraordinary talent or ability, they would be promoted. It's easier to explain by example: Let's say we have three levels, A,B, and C, with A being the highest. A position becomes vacated in level B. Those in level C now become eligible for promotion. To determine who is promoted, those in level C would vote among themselves to determine candidates for promotion. Those in level A would then vote on which of these candidates will take the job. The levels themselves are based on accumulated knowledge and experience required by the job. Level A would require more training than level B, which would require more training than level C, etc. Those in level A make the final decision because they are familiar with the job requirements for level B, having already passed through that position. However, those in level A cannot choose a candidate that is in disagreement with the desires of those in level C, because those in level C determine who the candidates will be in the first place. Multiple-runoff voting would be used for this process.

    The job of each Industry would be to provide their goods and services at the lowest possible cost, in terms of labor, resources, and extraneous energy. They would have no reason to do anything other than fulfill this mandate, because the profit motive is non-existent in this system.

    The heads of each Industry would form an executive council which would be responsible for long-term national planning. They would vote among themselves to choose a "speaker of the house" whose job it would be to make sure that the agreed upon agenda was being followed. This could be a rotating position.

    To remove anyone from their position, a 2/3rd recall vote of the people who work with that person (come into personal contact with them regularly in the workplace) is sufficient.
  3. NikitaUtiu
    NikitaUtiu
    Everyone would receive an equal ration of goods and services, which would be equal to their ability to physically consume such. This means each person would be able to consume as much of whatever they wanted, although they would no longer be able to own whatever they wanted. It also means that the profit incentive would be eliminated. Although people wouldn't be able to own an unlimited number of things, anything that they were using for a sufficient amount of time would be considered "personal items". This would include things like your house or your clothing, but not things like your car, which sits parked for 95% of the time as a result of it being privately owned. Anything not considered "personal items" would be free for anyone to use.

    Everyone would contribute an equal share of time and energy in operating society. How is this accomplished? Education would be free and mandatory, including college. The economy would be steady-state, so we would know in advance what % of the population to train for a particular field. The number of students admitted into a particular field would be determined by society's need for particular kinds of work and the student's qualifications (test scores, experience, recommendations, etc).

    All the "dirty work" would be automated to the degree possible or eliminated through improved efficiency. Any remaining dirty work would be equally divided among the whole population.

    If someone refused to work, their "distribution card" would be deactivated and they could no longer obtain any goods or services. Those unable to work as the result of a disability would be completely cared for and would suffer no loss of income.

    Each Industry will be managed by a meritocratic hierarchy of worker volunteers. As someone displayed extraordinary talent or ability, they would be promoted. It's easier to explain by example: Let's say we have three levels, A,B, and C, with A being the highest. A position becomes vacated in level B. Those in level C now become eligible for promotion. To determine who is promoted, those in level C would vote among themselves to determine candidates for promotion. Those in level A would then vote on which of these candidates will take the job. The levels themselves are based on accumulated knowledge and experience required by the job. Level A would require more training than level B, which would require more training than level C, etc. Those in level A make the final decision because they are familiar with the job requirements for level B, having already passed through that position. However, those in level A cannot choose a candidate that is in disagreement with the desires of those in level C, because those in level C determine who the candidates will be in the first place. Multiple-runoff voting would be used for this process.

    The job of each Industry would be to provide their goods and services at the lowest possible cost, in terms of labor, resources, and extraneous energy. They would have no reason to do anything other than fulfill this mandate, because the profit motive is non-existent in this system.

    The heads of each Industry would form an executive council which would be responsible for long-term national planning. They would vote among themselves to choose a "speaker of the house" whose job it would be to make sure that the agreed upon agenda was being followed. This could be a rotating position.

    To remove anyone from their position, a 2/3rd recall vote of the people who work with that person (come into personal contact with them regularly in the workplace) is sufficient.

    Great post!

    As technocracy and socialism are complementary, I want to suggest a socialist point of view on property (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) :

    - commodities will slowly become available to masses through demand (provided that the commodity is in fact useful - ex.no jewelery)
    - 30 years ago there wasn't so great a need for computers, but they have proven useful and mass production greatly reduced the production cost so they have become available to the masses
    - some people might purchase computers (through some kind of currency). They will be expensive at first, but they will become cheaper
    - these kind of facilities will become available in factories or others work places through governmental decision or petition

    - currency will be earned according to the meritocratic system
  4. Technocrat
    Technocrat

    - commodities will slowly become available to masses through demand (provided that the commodity is in fact useful - ex.no jewelery)
    The way we look at it in Technocracy is to analyze consumption using "use values". A "use value" is the concrete, objective way in which something fulfills a human need or desire. Two items might have the same use value but different exchange values, meaning two items might fulfill the same need but have different costs. In Technocracy, we always go with the lowest cost to produce any use value. If we go with your jewelry example, we can produce artificial diamonds which are superior in quality to real diamonds and at a much lower cost.

    Not everything would be purely useful. Luxuries would be available, but the amount rationed to each person would be determined by personal consumption. So if someone wanted jewelry they would only get enough to wear - not a chest full of it. If they got tired of their jewelry they could exchange it for new styles.

    Also, there wouldn't be any advertising to artificially tempt people into consuming things that they don't need. Without all the "diamonds are forever" commercials, demand for diamonds will drop naturally. If it comes down to it, people don't really need diamonds - its value is entirely subjective.

    - some people might purchase computers (through some kind of currency). They will be expensive at first, but they will become cheaper
    - these kind of facilities will become available in factories or others work places through governmental decision or petition

    - currency will be earned according to the meritocratic system
    In Technocracy people would have a "distribution card" which would be swiped every time they went to the distribution center to get something. This would merely keep track of everything that is consumed by the population, so that production can be planned accordingly. If someone refused to work, their distribution card would be deactivated.

    Everyone would have "free access" to everything that is produced, provided they have contributed their per capita share of time and energy toward production. Currency would not be necessary and would in fact undermine the system by creating the possibility of corruption, bribery, black markets, etc. The meritocratic system exists to ensure that every job is manned by the person most capable for it. People would be motivated to work because it would be mandatory and they would gain the recognition of their peers by excelling.
  5. NikitaUtiu
    NikitaUtiu
    I certainly agree with what you have said ,Technocrat, but the problem is that we need to find a way to classify products on a criteria of weather they are needed or not. (some might want having a luxury car whilst others might enjoy a simple but efficient car just as well).
    I think the goal of the system is to produce useful quality items at the lowest cost as possible. So if a luxury car is able to be produce at a comparable price to the latter there is no problem. If not, one will not want it anymore as the price is too high and demand will drop for it.

    This way we can educate people to prefer the latter car over the former.
  6. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    I certainly agree with what you have said ,Technocrat, but the problem is that we need to find a way to classify products on a criteria of weather they are needed or not. (some might want having a luxury car whilst others might enjoy a simple but efficient car just as well).
    The way we determine this is with use values. First of all, what does one actually consume when in the car? They don't consume the car itself, obviously, because the car is still there after you arrive at your destination. What is actually being consumed is transportation. The car might get you from point A to point B in relative comfort, speed, and safety, but there are other methods of getting from A to B that use less resources and could be faster, more comfortable, and safer. Second of all, even if cars were used, they wouldn't be privately owned since one could still use a car whenever they wanted without owning it individually, through a carsharing system.

    Products would be designed differently in a Technate. There wouldn't be 100 different models of a 4-door coupe, each with minor aesthetic differences. There would be just a few models which would be designed to be the most durable, most efficient, and highest quality possible.

    The goal of Technocracy is to minimize the inputs of human labor, resources, and energy, while maximizing the "use value" that is produced.

    I think the goal of the system is to produce useful quality items at the lowest cost as possible. So if a luxury car is able to be produce at a comparable price to the latter there is no problem. If not, one will not want it anymore as the price is too high and demand will drop for it.
    Prices wouldn't exist in this system. People would have free access to consume whatever they wanted to consume. We are talking about physical consumption, not ownership.
  7. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    In Technocracy people would have a "distribution card" which would be swiped every time they went to the distribution center to get something. This would merely keep track of everything that is consumed by the population, so that production can be planned accordingly. If someone refused to work, their distribution card would be deactivated.
    What would you define as "work" exactly?

    Also, I remember reading that the working week could be reduced to a handful of hours in a technocratic system, but I forget the exact mechanism that results in that - universal employment would be a great help, but I'm unsure if it would take us all the way. How else could everyone's workload be reduced?

    Everyone would have "free access" to everything that is produced, provided they have contributed their per capita share of time and energy toward production. Currency would not be necessary and would in fact undermine the system by creating the possibility of corruption, bribery, black markets, etc. The meritocratic system exists to ensure that every job is manned by the person most capable for it. People would be motivated to work because it would be mandatory and they would gain the recognition of their peers by excelling.
    I think the last point is very important - work would be a very different beast under a technocratic system, with a universal education system providing top-notch education from cradle to grave, allowing everyone to exploit their full potential. A society focused on personal and technical excellence would encourage much different career paths than our current society with its focus on narcissism and conspicuous consumption.
  8. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    What would you define as "work" exactly?
    Work is any task that is essential to the production of goods and services. This also includes design and engineering because nothing could be made without someone to first design it. Basically, if someone were to stop working, production would cease or slow - either immediately or soon after. Someone would have to step in to take up the slack. There wouldn't be any work that didn't contribute in a meaningful way to production.

    Also, I remember reading that the working week could be reduced to a handful of hours in a technocratic system, but I forget the exact mechanism that results in that - universal employment would be a great help, but I'm unsure if it would take us all the way. How else could everyone's workload be reduced?
    A new study needs to be done on working hours vis a vis production. We would first need to determine how much work was actually necessary to produce everything we need. We would only produce use values, not exchange values, using scientific central planning to determine the most efficient way of producing them. Just by switching to this model, we would greatly reduce the amount of resources and work required to produce everything needed by society.

    I think the last point is very important - work would be a very different beast under a technocratic system, with a universal education system providing top-notch education from cradle to grave, allowing everyone to exploit their full potential. A society focused on personal and technical excellence would encourage much different career paths than our current society with its focus on narcissism and conspicuous consumption.
    People would be happier, too. Studies show that happiness peaked in America in 1957 when our per capita income was less than $10,000 and has remained pretty level ever since, despite steadily rising income. Now that our per capita income is more than double the 1957 amount, happiness is actually slightly lower! The failure of materialist consumer culture to produce greater happiness is evident. Instead of talking about "growth", policymakers need to determine at optimum level of consumption - enough for everyone to meet their needs and desires, and no more.
  9. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    Work is any task that is essential to the production of goods and services. This also includes design and engineering because nothing could be made without someone to first design it. Basically, if someone were to stop working, production would cease or slow - either immediately or soon after. Someone would have to step in to take up the slack. There wouldn't be any work that didn't contribute in a meaningful way to production.
    So under the definition you give, the arts, sports and most of the humanities would not be considered "work". Yet there is a demand for such activities as well as people wanting to undertake them. Culture is important as well as technology.

    A new study needs to be done on working hours vis a vis production. We would first need to determine how much work was actually necessary to produce everything we need. We would only produce use values, not exchange values, using scientific central planning to determine the most efficient way of producing them. Just by switching to this model, we would greatly reduce the amount of resources and work required to produce everything needed by society.
    I very much suspect this is the case, but it would be nice to have something more than a gut feeling to support this.
  10. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    So under the definition you give, the arts, sports and most of the humanities would not be considered "work". Yet there is a demand for such activities as well as people wanting to undertake them. Culture is important as well as technology.
    No, that would definitely be considered work - sorry if I wasn't clear enough. "Art" and "sports" would be considered services that other people were consuming. It would be treated like any other service/product.

    I very much suspect this is the case, but it would be nice to have something more than a gut feeling to support this.
    We definitely have more than a "gut feeling" - we can demonstrate in several areas how we are consuming more energy/resources than is necessary in order to fulfill a given need. The problem is that none of these independent studies have been collated into a single a study as was done with Technocracy's first Energy Survey. A friend of mine recently did a paper suggesting that 90% of the resources we consume (North America) are wasted because they merely go to the overhead for operating the market system (banks, roads, cars, stores, etc): http://www.warsocialism.com/America.htm

    Look at transportation - cars easily consume 10x the energy of a person riding a train. Or look at housing - apartment/condo style housing uses less than half the energy of identically-sized detached bungalows. Or look at industry - just by adopting methods that already exist, we could reduce our consumption in the industrial sector by close to 50% (Department of Energy study).

    What we really need though is a new study of working hours vis a vis production so that we can determine how much work is really needed. I suspect that the work week would be shorter than 20 hours since Technocracy estimated a 20 hour work week back in the 1920s, and our technology has improved significantly since then.
  11. ÑóẊîöʼn
    ÑóẊîöʼn
    No, that would definitely be considered work - sorry if I wasn't clear enough. "Art" and "sports" would be considered services that other people were consuming. It would be treated like any other service/product.

    We definitely have more than a "gut feeling" - we can demonstrate in several areas how we are consuming more energy/resources than is necessary in order to fulfill a given need. The problem is that none of these independent studies have been collated into a single a study as was done with Technocracy's first Energy Survey. A friend of mine recently did a paper suggesting that 90% of the resources we consume (North America) are wasted because they merely go to the overhead for operating the market system (banks, roads, cars, stores, etc): http://www.warsocialism.com/America.htm

    Look at transportation - cars easily consume 10x the energy of a person riding a train. Or look at housing - apartment/condo style housing uses less than half the energy of identically-sized detached bungalows. Or look at industry - just by adopting methods that already exist, we could reduce our consumption in the industrial sector by close to 50% (Department of Energy study).
    Thanks for that. I also remembered at least one possible source of my "gut feeling" - Factor Four. If you haven't read this already, do so. The efficiency gains to be made are almost mind-boggling. Another book I've read, The Solar Economy, has a number of good ideas as well.

    What we really need though is a new study of working hours vis a vis production so that we can determine how much work is really needed. I suspect that the work week would be shorter than 20 hours since Technocracy estimated a 20 hour work week back in the 1920s, and our technology has improved significantly since then.
    Hasn't population also increased? I wonder how much that would dampen the technological effect...
  12. NikitaUtiu
    NikitaUtiu
    This is indeed true; energy and raw material are wasted every day because of greed. e.g.Why doesn't anybody try harder to find an alternative fuel for transportation? Something sustainable, non-polluting etc. Indeed, some try, but are quickly kicked of the market by the oil monopoly. Technocracy could change this: research would be directed for the wellness of everybody rather than the monopolists'.

    No, that would definitely be considered work - sorry if I wasn't clear enough. "Art" and "sports" would be considered services that other people were consuming. It would be treated like any other service/product.
    And they do indeed have the use value: of entertaining the population. They can definitely be considered work. The main concern would be to make population understand and show them that the same use value can be procured with a lesser amount of work and cost( painted glass beads instead of pearl necklace - and they look the same; which one would should they choose ?)
  13. Technocrat
    Technocrat
    This is indeed true; energy and raw material are wasted every day because of greed. e.g.Why doesn't anybody try harder to find an alternative fuel for transportation? Something sustainable, non-polluting etc. Indeed, some try, but are quickly kicked of the market by the oil monopoly. Technocracy could change this: research would be directed for the wellness of everybody rather than the monopolists'.


    And they do indeed have the use value: of entertaining the population. They can definitely be considered work. The main concern would be to make population understand and show them that the same use value can be procured with a lesser amount of work and cost( painted glass beads instead of pearl necklace - and they look the same; which one would should they choose ?)
    Yep, you pretty much have the gist of it with reference to use values and social planning.