Your suggestions for a system of fair pay

[littlebabyjesus]

Would yo not? if the shit started piling up would you not grab a shovel?

Exactly.

 

[DotCommunist]

A good part of this system would be that anyone could drop out to pursue art or music. Some may want a bit extra money and choose to clean the streets for a couple of days a week - there would be no reason why everyone would need to work either full time or not at all. I disagree, by the way, with your examples - I would find spending a few hours a week cleaning the streets quite enjoyable.

People diregard any kind of cleaning as demoralising. So not the truth. Theres a mingled pride in trransforming a shithole into a livable space and making it ready for other eople

 

[scifisam]

Would yo not? if the shit started piling up would you not grab a shovel?

Maybe, unless the piled-up shit had made me ill, which is what piled-up shit tends to do to people. That's how severe it would have to get before most people would pitch in - severe enough that the shit was a major public health problem. Yay.

The Bro makes a good profit on the Boing! work and it causes him a few swift txts. Easy for him, dificult and stressful and low paid for the people he sends

He's not a very good example of someone doing a shit job for little money then, is he?

 

[scifisam]

People diregard any kind of cleaning as demoralising. So not the truth. Theres a mingled pride in trransforming a shithole into a livable space and making it ready for other eople

I find it quite difficult forcing myself to even clean my own home!

No doubt, some people would be willing to do that kind of work. But would there be enough people willing to do it? I'd bet a million quid that there wouldn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe, unless the piled-up shit had made me ill, which is what piled-up shit tends to do to people. That's how severe it would have to get before most people would pitch in - severe enough that the shit was a major public health problem. Yay.

That may be possibly be true now, but that is because people don't truly believe that the streets and towns they live in belong to them.

 

[DotCommunist]

Maybe, unless the piled-up shit had made me ill, which is what piled-up shit tends to do to people. That's how severe it would have to get before most people would pitch in - severe enough that the shit was a major public health problem. Yay.

your low opinion of people is misjudged IMO, we had the nieghbours round asking if we needed to dump any bags in the traler they were going tip with

He's not a very good example of someone doing a shit job for little money then, is he?

No he isn't, he's the example of an arsehole making profit from dirty jobs and making them unpalatable to people. What did you think I was on about?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I find it quite difficult forcing myself to even clean my own home!

No doubt, some people would be willing to do that kind of work. But would there be enough people willing to do it? I'd bet a million quid that there wouldn't.

So, you've been given a decent wage and you wouldn't even pitch in to do some cleaning? You'd just sit there and watch others do it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

your low opinion of people is misjudged IMO, we had the nieghbours round asking if we needed to dump any bags in the traler they were going tip with

This is what surprises me. Despite ample evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that most people are selfish and lazy.

 

[DotCommunist]

I find it quite difficult forcing myself to even clean my own home!

No doubt, some people would be willing to do that kind of work. But would there be enough people willing to do it? I'd bet a million quid that there wouldn't.

Your million quid disregards the idea of people willing to top up citizen wage with an evening 2-3 hour cleaning job. I think you project your own ambitiousness dude.

 

[scifisam]

your low opinion of people is misjudged IMO, we had the nieghbours round asking if we needed to dump any bags in the traler they were going tip with

Not quite the same thing, is it?

No he isn't, he's the example of an arsehole making profit from dirty jobs and making them unpalatable to people. What did you think I was on about?

Um, not really sure why you brought him up, then.

@LBJ: I'm not sure. I'd probably do some, to be honest. I even help clean up the the end of the pottery session when I don't have to.

Enough to meet the workload of a part-time worker doing that job? Probably not - I'd want to be doing my music or writing or spending more time with my daughter.

I think you and DC are being too idealistic about how willing people are to chip in. There would have to be some other incentive for doing the shit work. Just 'because it has to be done' is not enough.

 

[DotCommunist]

Not quite the same thing, is it?

It isn't? My experiences aren't examples of communities banding together for the greater good? remember the UNISON strike left most of us without bin collection two weeks ago, which is why and when the nieghbours carted off my rotten binbags

Um, not really sure why you brought him up, then.

To talk about how capatilist societies deal with shit jobs of course. By sub-sub-sub contracts that end with min. wage workers doing the filthy jobs

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Edited - I'm off to bed.

 

[scifisam]

It isn't? My experiences aren't examples of communities banding together for the greater good? remember the UNISON strike left most of us without bin collection two weeks ago, which is why and when the nieghbours carted off my rotten binbags

Ah, I thought you meant they happened to have a skip, for moving house or redoing it or whatever, and were asking people if they wanted to add to it. Not strike-breaking.

Only half kidding about the strike-breaking. Like I said, I'm sure some people would step up to the mark and do the shit jobs, but probably not enough.

Some of the shit jobs also require a great deal of skill. Social work, especially child protection, for example. Can't see many people willing to do that for long; even when it's paid reasonably well (though not as well as it should be), people burn out because the work is so bloody hard.

If you paid the sewage workers and others in shit jobs really well on top of their national salary, then it might not be a problem. But I suggested that on page one, and it was refuted - high pay apparently wouldn't be necessary to encourage people to do what is, for the majority of people, the least-enjoyable work.

To talk about how capatilist societies deal with shit jobs of course. By sub-sub-sub contracts that end with min. wage workers doing the filthy jobs

Ah, right. But we know how capitalist societies deal with shit jobs. I just think that the shit jobs are shit because of the nature of their work as well as the structure they're in.

You said, in the same post, that a lot of people are willing to do shit jobs for low pay. They're willing to do those jobs because they don't have many other options though, surely, not because of some sense of public service?


One argument I've heard against the idea of a national salary is that it would cause such inflation that the national salary would end up worthless. How would you guys confront that problem?


(BTW, I do really like the idea of it, I just don't see it as workable in the real world).

 

[Mation]

Morning!

Truly awful idea. Seeing someone, no matter how inept or crap at doing a job they are getting paid more than someone who is good at it, but younger than them? No one would want any responsibility.

Terrible idea.

No better idea to suggest than we have now though.



Although I find it hard to find an arguement against someone getting paid well if they deliver well in the job they do, over someone who doesn't. I can see a cap to earnings being feasible though at some level. As someone else said, I eagerly await better suggestions.

No it's not, it's a brilliant idea

No-one would be forced to watch someone who was shit and older get paid more than someone who was great and younger. If you were no good at your job then after appropriate help and training you'd get moved within organisation to something you could do or if that wasn't possible you'd get fired.

Simple!

I have liked parecon principles.

A comparison of capitalism and what parecon does for wages.

Summarise here please?

 

[gorski]

People could invite prospective employers to an interview to select which one they wanted to work for.

Interesting. On the off chance it may ever be realised: how do they get around, on a practical level, to any and all potential employees for an interview? It could me many more of those around than employers, so...???

 

[gorski]

Would yo not? if the shit started piling up would you not grab a shovel?

The Bro makes a good profit on the Boing! work and it causes him a few swift txts. Easy for him, dificult and stressful and low paid for the people he sends

Those things can be automatised, roboticised etc. Put the army engineers to it and see...

Your bro is a DotRottenCapitalist, then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting. On the off chance it may ever be realised: how do they get around, on a practical level, to any and all potential employees for an interview? It could me many more of those around than employers, so...???

Interweb could do it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

One argument I've heard against the idea of a national salary is that it would cause such inflation that the national salary would end up worthless. How would you guys confront that problem?.

First you need to explain why it would cause inflation. That's not actually an argument as it stands - it is just a statement. An 'argument' used by the Tories to oppose the minimum wage was that it would cause inflation. They were wrong. It didn't.

 

[butchersapron]

Mine: Pay everyone their age. Determine a per-annum unit (let's say £1k for now) and pay everyone that, increasing by one unit a year, no matter what position they hold or job they do.

Yours?

Do you mean within capitalism?

 

[gorski]

Interweb could do it.

It presupposes a lot of technology in every house, even the poor...

On the other hand, imagine the smaller companies - do you think they could have the time, away from working and managing the company etc.?

 

[Santino]

I don't have a problem paying people a decent amount of dole (enough to live and have some fun and feel secure) if they are unable to find work, if they are ill, or need to care for children or anyone else, but I would object to a system that said even if you just don't want to work, we'll support you indefinitely.

I wouldn't even mind a system that gave grants to people to pursue creative endeavours for a few years (maybe you get a certain finite amount of social funding, to go to university, drop out for a while, etc.).

It wouldn't kill me to learn that a few people were exploiting the system through fraud or loopholes. But I really do not want to say to people: don't worry about working, we'll sort it out, any more than if we all lived in self-sufficient villages or 100 people and had a few wasters hanging around the village square all day eating the food we grew and living in houses that we built.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So, imagine the smaller companies - do you think they could have the time, away from working and managing the company etc.?

Potential employees could advertise themselves, and employers could search a database to find those in their area that might want to work for them. Even now, there is a balance between the employer wanting to attract the best workers and the employee wanting to find a job, but with a guaranteed living wage in place, the power in this balance will shift towards the employee, forcing employers to make working for them a more attractive proposition.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't have a problem paying people a decent amount of dole (enough to live and have some fun and feel secure) if they are unable to find work, if they are ill, or need to care for children or anyone else, but I would object to a system that said even if you just don't want to work, we'll support you indefinitely.

I wouldn't even mind a system that gave grants to people to pursue creative endeavours for a few years (maybe you get a certain finite amount of social funding, to go to university, drop out for a while, etc.).

It wouldn't kill me to learn that a few people were exploiting the system through fraud or loopholes. But I really do not want to say to people: don't worry about working, we'll sort it out, any more than if we all lived in self-sufficient villages or 100 people and had a few wasters hanging around the village square all day eating the food we grew and living in houses that we built.

It won't work at all if there is a compulsion to work, as the whip hand would still lie with the employer. I think the number not wanting to work would be similar to now, but even if it is a little higher, why would you care? In the current system, huge amounts of resources are dedicated to hounding the unemployed - I object to that.

 

[baldrick]

I don't have a problem paying people a decent amount of dole (enough to live and have some fun and feel secure) if they are unable to find work, if they are ill, or need to care for children or anyone else, but I would object to a system that said even if you just don't want to work, we'll support you indefinitely.

You get more out of work than simply a wage - I think lbj is spot on in saying that a life on the dole is depressing for most people. Thus, people would choose to work in some capacity. And those on the dole may well find some kind of endeavour to fill their days - maybe not paid work, but nevertheless something that they enjoy and maybe something that benefits others. If paid work isn't for them, I don't think it would be right to force it on them. There should be room for everyone in a properly inclusive society.

 

[Santino]

In the current system, huge amounts of resources are dedicated to hounding the unemployed - I object to that.

I'm not crazy about it either. But I don't want to just give people stuff for free for no good reason. The thought-experiment of a village just feeding, clothing and sheltering people who don't want to work is meant to illustrate what the welfare system conceals - which is that when you go to work, you are supporting people who do not (which is fine when they are unable to work, caring for children, etc etc as I said above).

I can appreciate supporting those unwilling to work if it is just more efficient and better for us (that is, those who do want to contribute to society) than not supporting them (as I also suggested above), but if someone turned up at my door and asked if they could come to dinner because they couldn't be arsed to work, I'd tell them to fuck off. (I wouldn't actually, I would stammer something about being busy and then hide.) I don't see why a large society should support those unwilling to work any more than a small community or a single household.

 

[gorski]

Potential employees could advertise themselves, and employers could search a database to find those in their area that might want to work for them. Even now, there is a balance between the employer wanting to attract the best workers and the employee wanting to find a job, but with a guaranteed living wage in place, the power in this balance will shift towards the employee, forcing employers to make working for them a more attractive proposition.

I have to note you avoided the Q: normally a potential employee comes to be interviewed [as s/he is possibly not so busy as the employer with larger responsibilities, or maybe even not employed at all], when a potential employer has the time. It's reasonable, non?

So, they negotiate the best time for both parties and then a potential employee gets to see the firm and sample the atmosphere etc.

It works both ways, this arrangement, I think...

 

[Santino]

You get more out of work than simply a wage - I think lbj is spot on in saying that a life on the dole is depressing for most people. Thus, people would choose to work in some capacity.

I agree that life without a job would be dull and depressing, but I think you underestimate people's inertia and propensity for making poor choices.

 

[Mation]

Do you mean within capitalism?

I don't think it could be, could it? The only circumstances in which anyone could acquire more money than anyone else would be if they were older, as above, or - adopting part of lbj's policy to enable people not to work - if they were on a living wage that was some proportion of the working wage.

 

[baldrick]

I agree that life without a job would be dull and depressing, but I think you underestimate people's inertia and propensity for making poor choices.

I think it should be taken as read that the dole situation would be different. For e.g at the moment, there is no capacity for going to college/voluntary work/short term work without risking your benefits. I think this is one of the things that actively prevents people on the dole from moving on.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree that life without a job would be dull and depressing, but I think you underestimate people's inertia and propensity for making poor choices.

Are you really saying that people would just lie around for years (with others around them telling them how good they are finding it working) and it simply wouldn't occur to them that they could go and get a job instead? Would you be one of those people? If not, why do you think others would be?