This is exactly how I think about my money. I'm confused why not many other people do this. It really makes you think twice about what you spend your money on a lot of times.
this post was submitted on 23 May 2026
912 points (97.7% liked)
Flippanarchy
2510 readers
534 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that in 1 hour some people would do basically nothing and other people would do a ton. So the compensation's not really fair. Isn't 1 hour of a brain surgeon's time work more than a guy spinning a pizza shop sign.
This only works as a minimum for menial jobs, and if everyone gets 1000 hours every month, no matter their circumstances, and jobs give more hours the harder and more dangerous they are.
May as well call them "credit" instead, since it'd have to be actually detached from hours.
But if you only have credits, you end up with capitalism again.
We need two more currencies: karma and laurels.
You'd get karma when you do stuff that is helpful to others; it doesn't matter if you do it for selfish reasons, as long as it helps others. You'd get laurels when you do stuff no one has done before. Karma and laurels would be non-transferable.
Karma would represent how much you help society, so society pays back. You could spend karma to pay lower taxes and even to directly get credits from the government. Maybe other benefits too, depending on technological advancements.
Laurels would let you call 'dibs' on stuff. Like being able to benefit exlusively for something you invented. The better the invention and the more it benefits people, the more laurels you get and the longer the exclusivity you can maintain before it becomes public domain.
Now we just need some sort of benign gestalt AI like in the Culture books to ensure karma and laurels are accounted impartially.
This is just capitalism with extra steps.
Movie "Out of Time" did this. Oligarchy was definitely not solved by this.
What the hell are you even talking about? The premise of the movie needed there to be extreme inequality for there to be a story to tell... You think that they used economic models to make sure that their fake economy was realistic in any way?
Okay but compare two writers. One writer works years on one book and the other is Stephen King. Should the book of the writer who toils to finish one book be more expensive than the book of the writer who finished his book in a matter of weeks when these books are the same length ?
I think you have to factor in the many hours cocaine farmers worked to getting the average Stephen King novel finished.
Personally, I think some people's work is worth more than other people's work. If you're job involves raw sewage for example, I think you should earn a premium. Or if you're job puts the stress of life and death in your hands. Cardiac surgeons have way more stressful days at work than I do.
At most, only one order of magnitude greater seems fair. Nobody's job is a billion times as hard as any job.
I would give 1000 hours of my time to a surgeon if it meant they saved the life of my partner. I don't care if it only took them 60 seconds.
Some things are far, far more valuable than a single extra 0.
I mean, ideally there's a hospital where lots of doctors work and provide their labour at an equitable rate based on reality, rather than a situation tailored for high stakes. But I get the sentiment.
Yes, true. I don't support Billionaires or the idea that different people in different jobs don't work hard in their own way, or that management should make so much more money than everyone else. I just think some people should get gross pay, or danger pay, etc. I've had rough days at work but I've never had to insert a catheter or wipe a patient's ass.
In our hypothetical world we're envisioning here, I think a flat multiple would be inducement enough for some. To be able to retire 3x or 4x as fast for hazardous, stressful, or highly unpleasant jobs would be very attractive for a significant amount of the population.
As for education, you could just make it so students earn for studying (rather than paying for the chance) at a low multiple, and make more skilled labour a moderate multiple.
I have several questions for the Marxists in here, because i like the idea of this, but there seem, to me, to be some very serious issues with the labour theory of value as it has been presented in the comments and elsewhere I have seen. Can y'all help me understand?
- ~~Skilled Labour~~ (Solved): As others have pointed out, of course, skilled work takes multiple thousands of hours of education to be able to succeed. While I don't necessarily claim that this makes a Doctor worth more than a Custodian in the same hospital, I, as an educator, must ask: if the educators who educated the doctor got paid in hours of value, where did the value of those hours come from, if not the future labour of the doctor? Those thousands of hours to train the doctor are what allow the doctor to perform the labour, and so the cost of the doctor's labour must be higher, just as the value of a porcelain bowl must necessarily include the labour of the miners who quarried the Kaolinite, the labour to transport the kaolinite to the kiln, the labour to produce the fuel which fires the kiln which bakes the Kaolinite, etc. Training is labour, so the value of the future labour of those being trained must marginally increase for every hour spent training. In order to calculate the value of that training labour, therefore, must we not estimate the value of all the future labour of the doctor, then divide it over the expected course of a career? Is it possible for someone to go into "training debt" by choosing a career for which their training is not utilised? (For instance, if a person trains to be a doctor, but then chooses to become an artist instead, all of those hours spent educating them to be a doctor have been paid out to their educators, but they will not utilize that training, so does the value of that labour retroactively diminish, or is the student liable for the lost potential labour?) Is there some better framework for calculating the value of training labour?
Proposed Solution: Pay the Teachers and their Students as they work through the training. The additional value of the doctor's future work is not paid out to the doctor, because that added value is the value with which you pay the teachers and students, and thus the doctor's future payment remains the same, because it was already paid out to them and to their teachers, during the period of time they were training.
-
Perverse Incentive of Technology: In a theory of value where the value of a thing is in the labour required to produce it, improvements in technology, which increase the efficiency of a process or otherwise reduce the amount of labour required to produce something, appear to me to have an inflationary effect. Technology makes each thing require fewer hours of work to produce, making each marginally less valuable. This means that, if a producer were to hide their use of technology, and claim they used more hours of labour than they did, this would cause the value of the product to stay high. As long as no outside auditor watches and times every step of the process, efficiency improvements are incentivised, not because they allow labour hours to produce more, but because minor, unreported improvements in efficiency can be capitalised to produce profit. In fact, the entire concept of labour value calculations requires impartial auditors at every step of every manufacturing process, otherwise there is an incentive for fraud, claiming that things required more hours to produce than they did.
-
Labour with Increased Risk: Some labour is, inherently, more dangerous than others. Time is not always a factor in safety. From literal risk of bodily injury, to risk of infectious disease, to the risk of malpractice. How do you incentivise people to go into professions which carry greater risk without making their labour worth inherently more? The custodian at the hospital carries a significantly greater risk of suffering infectious disease —and losing the opportunity to produce value— than the custodian at the museum of natural history. From a simple cost-benefit perspective, the increased risk to the hospital custodian effectively increases the "costs" of doing that labour, as it carries with it the negative expected value of lost future productivity due to illness. Does the hospital custodian, who accepts greater risks to do what is otherwise a similar job, produce greater value per hour worked, as both jobs are necessary, but the hospital job has a lower value for the worker per hour worked, due to the expected cost of risk?
-
The Auditor: Ultimately, who decides the Value of every product and service? In order for a Labour Valuation to work, we must ensure that value fraud is impossible (or at least very difficult and must carry with it severe disincentives if discovered). Who audits the declared valuations? Who does the calculations for expected value of training? Who establishes regulations to ensure quality of products and services, and how do they measure efficacy? But, most importantly, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who determines the value produced by those who audit value? Who determines the number of auditors that are necessary, or redundant? How do you ensure that there is no corruption amongst the auditors?
My understanding is that "To each according to their needs" is the Marxist perspective. No need to determine value.
So then what's the point of the labour theory of value? Why do we need to use hours of labour as a measurement of value?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for gay space communism, as long as it can work. I'd love to live in a money-free society, and just take basic income to do what I love: teaching science to others and exploring it more deeply myself. I think that "to each according to their needs" is an admirable baseline, but how do you convince people that it's worthwhile to buy into that, since it would take serious buy-in from the vast majority of people to make it work (otherwise, the coffers of the state will be empty, and you get mass death)
Personally, I'd be fine with a state takeover of every industry, then turning everything into a worker co-op. Of course, as a public educator, that's already how it works for me, but my sector could use stronger unions and the right to strike (in my jurisdiction, neither of these are present)
The post wasn’t made to suggest this analogy as the solution but rather as a thought experiment to demonstrate the evil of money hoarders. Once enough of us recognize the evil and farcical nature of capital then we can work towards a solution.
Absolutely, and this post is highly simplified. The reason I'm bringing Marx into this is that many other commenters have been saying that this is effectively an oversimplification of Marx's Labour Theory of Value, and I've been trying to examine communism, socialism, and other theories of governance in an effort to be an informed citizen of the world, as you say, working toward a solution. I firmly believe that, if you don't have that solution worked out before you begin, you end up just playing catch-up. So, I'm asking the Marxists ITT to help me understand the nuances of the Labour Theory of Value. I recently read about several communes which replaced money with the promise of labour, or the evidence of labour in the public good, and I like the idea, but I want to understand the nuances of how such an upending of economic theory would work. I really want this boat to hold water, so I'm trying to find any potential leaks before we set it adrift on a roiling sea.
The question of education ignores that the doctors also did large amounts of labor as students, not just their teachers.
So that provides the solution . . . .pay students for the time they spend working on their future productivity through education.
For 2 - the average across an industry is fine. In that case, the attempted fraudster has the same issue as criminals questioned separately . . . Their stories won't add up.
For 3 - we don't currently see hospital janitors paid a premium.
4 is just the same as 2.
I appreciate the response, but I don't understand how this answers my questions. Could you give me a bit more detail?
The question of education ignores that the doctors also did large amounts of labor as students, not just their teachers. So that provides the solution . . . .pay students for the time they spend working on their future productivity through education.
~~This doesn't actually answer where the value comes from. My question is: I presume that you value education, and that teachers should be paid for their labour, but from where does the value of that labor derive? If it isn't coming from the future expected productivity of their pupils, then it's coming out of thin air. Saying "let's also pay the students during that time" doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it compounds it, because if you're paying both the students and the teachers for just doing those things, then from where is the value originating?~~
Edit: I think, on reflection, I might understand what you meant on the first point: are you suggesting that the additional value of the doctor's work is how you pay the teachers, and thus the doctor's future payment remains the same, because it was already paid out to them and to their teachers, for the period of time they were training? Because that makes some sense, and I'll have to think about it for a bit. I still don't get any of the rest of your arguments.
the average across an industry is fine.
This incentivises oligopolistic collusion and price fixing.
Their stories won't add up.
See 4. Who determines that their stories don't add up? How much of the population must be engaged in the bureaucracy of measuring every detail of reported value?
we don't currently see hospital janitors paid a premium.
And? Why shouldn't we? Are you seriously using the system under capitalism to justify not doing better under socialism? This argument is whataboutism. I can disapprove of the capitalist practice while also pointing out problems with an opposing theory.
4 is just the same as 2.
Patently false. 4 is a necessity because of all of the others. Someone has to determine what labour has value, someone has to determine and publish the values of each product and service. The labour theory of value requires a regulating system. This must either be a command economy, setting the values of everything, or it must effectively be an honour system equivalent to the free market, where the producers simply declare the value of the things they produce and it's up to the consumer to determine the fairness of different prices. So, I ask again, since you can't just brush off the question like it's asked-and-answered: Who are the guards who set the value of all things? Is it the "invisible hand" of the free market "self-regulating"? (in which case, how do we know that excess value is not being assigned to products by their producers?) Is it the audit of a bureaucrat whom we must trust not to be corrupt? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? How do we ensure that this doesn't simply devolve back into capitalism or, just as bad, oligarchic entrenched corruption?
Again, I want to make this work, but I don't understand how these questions can be answered without saying, effectively, that we must have a command economy setting the prices of all things, and trusting that the bureaucrats who are running the place aren't lining their own pockets. I don't want to hear about how "capitalism is just as bad". Yes, that's why we need something better. So I want to understand how this is better in these specific respects.
Yes, taking training time as labor eliminates the deficit problem.
For "oligarchy" - you're supposing here there's a small number of owners who would benefit from collusion. If you're presupposing socialism, and this common ownership, that's not the case. Why, and how, would a democraticly controlled workplace engage in widespread time fraud?
Thanks for the clarification.I contend that presupposing socialism and collective ownership doesn't actually change human nature. There will always be those who seek a way to "get ahead" for personal gain. There will always be idiots who are easily manipulated into voting against their own best interests. There will always be those whose desire for power over others compels them to subvert otherwise-beneficial systems.
My goal here is to assume that we aren't being naïve about human nature, and to ensure that the system can work without devolving to either corrupt bureaucracy or capitalism (or, again just as bad, totalitarian dictatorship):
Why, and how, would a democraticly controlled workplace engage in widespread time fraud?
Why, and how, would a democratically-elected government turn to fascism or imperialism? Why and how would a communist government become a totalitarian dictatorship? While all three of these questions have merit, unfortunately, the fact is that they do, and in at least the latter two cases, have happened (the first has never been given a chance to at a widespread level). The vox populi is easily manipulated by those who can convince them to fear the other, or to shift blame for ills onto a convenient scapegoat, often either a minority or the apparatus of governance itself (by attacking social programs). It is too easy to manipulate people into going along with a plan because they are convinced that it will work out well for them. Heck, it doesn't even need to be secret. It doesn't even have to be intentional. All it takes is people working to do their job better or faster, and without any intervention, you will get inflation. If managers simply implement efficiency measures, but don't re-evaluate value calculations, it will not lead to inflation, but then you have labourers at those workplaces being compensated equally for lower labour. And as much as I hate to say it, we can't just imagine away the need for managerial roles, especially in a world such as this, where we seek to ensure that all needs are met. Yes, workers produce the majority of the value, but actual project management is also labour that deserves pay. Auditing and publishing values is not something that will just go away, and must be done either by management on the honour system, or by external bureaucrats on the mandate of the state. I contend that ignoring regulating checks and maintenance is a surefire way for any system to fail, so you can never do away with value audits to ensure that everything is working correctly, otherwise the populace will become complacent and easily manipulated. In any decent government, all actions must be transparent, justified using evidence, and rigorously investigated in order to ensure that the public interest is being served. In my view, the only people who can "guard the guards" are a well-educated populace with time enough to spend investigating their government to place a check on corruption. People are lazy, too, so most people will not actually be checking government data themselves, just like most people aren't reading the source code of everything they download, even if it is open-source. The problem, then, is that there will be those who seek to subvert the system at every level, and as long as there remain perverse incentives buried in the system —such as inflation through technology— there will be those trying to cheat the system to realize those potential gains. I'm trying to understand if it is possible to remove those perverse incentives. Can you think of a way to remove (or at least minimise) the incentives toward corruption, fraud, and tech inflation?
As an example of removing an incentive (or, in this case, a disincentive) I still feel that the question of Hazard Pay remains unanswered, as that throws a wrench into the idea that all labour is of the same value to society. The disincentive to take on additional risk to perform a necessary job is a serious problem, and already leads to issues such as the teacher shortage. There are many very good reasons why people do not want to be teachers, but it isn't just "I can't survive on a teacher's salary". As a teacher, I can tell you that the biggest reason I see my fellow teachers quitting is because the practice of teaching can be seriously deleterious to mental health. I can cite studies, if it would be helpful, that show that teachers leave because they don't see teaching as a profession that is sustainable long-term, because the majority of all teachers are experiencing some level of burnout, and that they might consider staying if the pay were better. The fact is, if there isn't an incentive to choose education over jobs which are less taxing to mental health, you won't have people staying as teachers, even those who are very good at it. This applies for any job with serious risks, and those facing greater risks deserve greater pay to incentivise people to train for and enter into those careers. A factory line worker deserves greater pay than their manager, because it isn't the manager who's going to get their arm degloved if they lose concentration for two seconds around a rotating axle. Under this system of hours of labour+hazard, A teacher should not be paid as much as a farmer or construction worker because the risks of death and serious injury working on a farm or construction site far outweigh the risk to mental health a teacher faces (even including the guarantee that every teacher will get every single disease known to man, because everyone sends their kid to school sick). Thus, the risks of doing labour must be factored into the values of products and services, and must also be included in the compensation for labour, or there will be a disincentive to choose, e.g., Farming as a career.
I contend that presupposing socialism and collective ownership doesn't actually change human nature
You're defining human nature, but not providing data on that.
Yes, some humans will try to game the system. Humans also will try to aid other humans, and do things because they find them interesting. Homo economicus is a myth, and one that is disproven daily.
would a democratically-elected government turn to fascism or imperialism?
Well, for one thing, there has NEVER been a government of "democracy" that includes economic matters. If you're asking why a bourgeois government would turn to those, it's because it's in the interest of capital. Fascism is in fact the immune system of capitalism.
Again, you're trying to have it both ways here it seems - to say that the behavior of humans under the coercion of capitalism is proof that coercion is needed, but also that socialism must not have coercion.
teachers leave due to low pay
Right, and if you look at the rates that teachers receive, compared to global production as a whole, they're tiny. And yet you still see people become teachers, over and over. It's obviously not in their self-interest to do so, even for a short while.
You're proving the point. Now imagine that labor is actually given the value it creates, just in time spent. The amount of production that is taken by those who produce nothing but own is huge. If that was evenly distributed, the problem would be too many possible teachers, not too few, as the low pay would no longer be an issue. An hour of teaching would buy so much.
because the risks of death and serious injury working on a farm or construction site far outweigh the risk to mental health
You're ignoring personal preference - DIY existing alone shows that people want to take some of these risks.
But sure, let's say that people no longer want to work on ice fishing boats anymore. There's a couple ways to address this - either we stop eating crab (maybe not the worst idea ecologically), or we build robots to do it for us.
I'm increasingly concerned that it seems like you are dismissing my concerns about risk of harm by just saying "it's already that way under capitalism, so why should it need to be better?" It also seems like you are claiming that I hold the burden of proof for saying that the conclusions of game theory and simple economics hold, rather than that a totally untested, never-successfully-implemented system must prove its worth before completely discarding every single model which describes the system of humanity as we know it. Doesn't that sound, very literally, reactionary? As in, a reaction on reflex? That we should just throw ourselves to the wind in the hope that we end up somewhere better than capitalism?
By saying that no true democracy that "includes economic matters" has ever existed, you make my point clear: you are saying "this has never been done before, therefore it must work because it is different"
The reason I do not provide data on human nature is because the burden of proof lies with those attempting to disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis here is the current understanding under the system known to the querent: I.e. very basic economics and game theory. The untested system is the one which must prove itself. I would be very genuinely interested to see your data on "homo economicus is a myth, one that is disproven daily", preferably starting with a rigorous definition of what, precisely, are the implicit assumptions of "Homo Economicus" which are to be disproved. The only presuppositions I have made, as far as I can tell, are that humans are not perfectly rational actors (hence the "easily manipulated" part), but that they are still capable of rational choices given incomplete information. Basic game theory can describe why people would make selfish decisions. All you need are the right perceived cost and benefit weightings to show that a rational actor would and should make betrayer moves. Just saying "altruism exists", or that people who choose to become teachers have intrinsic motivation is insufficient to prove what appears, at least to me, to be a patently naïve view of the innate goodness of people. If you want my "data" on "a fair portion of people suck, and it is often rational for people to betray others", I recommend the lovely little simulation "the evolution of trust". That's nothing but simple game theory.
As far as "having it both ways" on coercion, I believe that any society that I would want to be a part of should incentivise people to make cooperator moves, and disincentivise betrayer moves, rather than relying on intrinsic motivation in a pie-in-the-sky, all-in bet that humans are intrinsically good enough to cooperate at scale without people gaming the system. All you need to see that intrinsic motivation is insufficient for most, is to look in a classroom. I can provide studies on intrinsic motivation in the classroom (which is about as far as you can get from capitalism in the modern age), if that would be helpful.
Anyway, Coercion is not something in which I'm interested. If a system cannot act without being based primarily on coercion (as you seem to be calling it or, as I would say it "without the clear inevitability of falling to a totalitarian state"), then that's not sufficiently better than the status quo for me to justify the effort of instantiating such a system
You treat the amount of teachers at equilibrium as the goal, but if you want an educated populace, your primary focus needs to be in incentivising those who are good at the job and those who have enough intrinsic motivation to want the job, to stay in the job. If you're constantly shuffling out the experienced teachers for new blood, then not only have you effectively just recreated the current Teacher-Crushing Machine™ (brought to you by the makers of the Orphan-Crushing Machine™ and the Torment NeXus™), but you've also just put the education of your entire population into the hands of inexperienced and mentally-taxed people desperate to get out. That's simply an untenable situation, and it's the same for every sector which carries risk. You want to minimise the risks, then actively incentivise those who are suited to the job and who are willing to take the risks to actually keep doing so. Is the goal of this whole endeavour not maximising utility? How is creating huge populations of jaded ex-firefighters supposed to serve the public good, let alone help to convince the populace that the system works better than the capitalist way? If the end goal just looks like a slightly different torment nexus, why should I want to upgrade to Torment Nexus 2 (now made with 30% recycled material!), for the low-low price of a violent revolution or three?
Yeah, dude, thanks for the wall of text deciding what my position is (erroneously) for me.
You asked a question, I answered it. You want to make up a straw man to yell at, you can do it without me.
I would point out that what has happened was that I asked about twenty questions, you half-answered one and then agreed when I extracted some meaning from it, then changed my original post to reflect it. You derided the other three quarters of my questions, repeatedly ignoring them, then mischaracterised my statements as "trying to have it both ways". Or "presupposing" things, without any statements supporting this. Talk about strawman. Rather than actually addressing the questions I specifically requested to focus on, you decided it was more important to just dismiss any questions which weren't already solvable under capitalism as unworthy, then got butthurt when I characterised that flippance as belying that your position must simply have no answer for the questions you have been so tirelessly ignoring. If you wish to characterise it as a strawman, feel free. I think I have my answers. Thanks for at least confirming a solution to the first problem. I'll see if anyone has any serious responses to inflationary concerns, risk as a necessary consideration, or the accountability question, rather than just claiming that they don't have to answer them.
Buddy, I'm not deriding anything.
I gave you answers, and you're making wild suppositions about how human nature supposedly is - and then demanding I answer your own, unsupported, conclusions as somehow axiomatic.
I've pointed out multiple times, gently, that this isn't the case, using real world and your own examples. Your response has been to then continue with your own assumptions. Yes, you have your answers - you decided you did from the beginning, and it's obvious you're not actually asking questions, you're convinced your own argument (which again, doesn't bear relation to reality) is wonderful and want that to be taken as gospel.
Nobody is butthurt here, it's simply pointless to continue to repeat things to you at this point.
So we'll go through this one last time, then you can continue on your little game by yourself. I really do have better things to do. Because I've worked on these systems, I gave you time already, which appears to have been a mistake.
any serious responses to inflationary concerns
Inflation isn't a concern in time value. As technology and capital increase productive capacity, the actual effect is deflationary - however, since labor vouchers don't allow hoarding, this is also not a real concern.
risk as a necessary consideration
Necessary for what? You seem to be supposing that there are risky professions which nobody will do except for money, and also cannot be done without.
OK, so name one?
Here is a list of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/workers-comp/most-dangerous-jobs-america/
Now notice something - only one, pilot, has a salary that is even 6 figures.
Do you see the problem with your argument? You're claiming nobody will do jobs, that they are currently doing, without incentive that they currently don't get.
or the accountability question
Again, you have claimed there would be, in your own words, widespread "oligarchic" fraud. When asked how that would be possible without a small number of owners who would profit from said fraud, you don't bother to answer. Because it shows the question is a meaningless one. I might as well ask how you intend to deal with the unicorn crisis under capitalism.
The actual effect being deflationary, and the statement on hoarding are exactly the sorts of insights I was looking for. Thank you! Can you explain how they are actually deflationary? And what does hoarding have to do with it?
As far as the risky jobs, I am not, and have never been, saying that no one will choose a risky job. I am saying that it shouldn't be a consequence of any good system to capitalise on the altruism of firefighters or the stupidity of people who choose a dangerous job. If people want to take on risks, great! If the risks are inherent to necessary labour, they should be compensated according to the relative expected loss of future productivity. Just because they aren't under the capitalist system doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. I must presume that the goal of this system would be to increase overall utility, that is to say, to increase —nay, maximise— total happiness and welfare. Consider a person who is choosing a job. We need people to perform all of these jobs, but some of them, like farming or construction, are far more risky. There may be some adrenaline junkies out there, as you have said, but the presumption of a sufficient number of adrenaline junkies to fill every construction and farming job is not a basis for a system of governance. You say "replace them with robots", but that isn't actually an answer. That's just saying that we should have the goal of making all jobs which carry a risk to life and limb redundant. Anywhere it is economically feasible to replace workers with robots, it has already been done (or is being done now) under capitalism's ever-increasing drive toward wealth centralisation. So, back to the person choosing a job. They are faced with a choice: all labor has the same value, so where do they want to work? Well, a rational actor will do a cost-benefit analysis, weighing risk and reward with each option. They may have a dream job, but that will only get them through the door. It doesn't keep them there. If they get seriously injured, they may never work again. Risk of death reduces life expectancy, albeit marginally. Why should the rational actor choose a profession —or choose to stay in a profession— which carries with it known risks to physical or mental health, when they can choose to do something with virtually no risk instead? If a job carries with it risks of death or injury to physical or mental health, then those jobs should be incentivised to account for the reduced expected career length and risk, in order to ensure that those positions are filled. I just don't understand how that's controversial. Equality is not equity. Someone working as a firefighter should be compensated for the fact that, at any time, they could die for the public good. That loss of future expected productivity should be compensated by spreading the expected loss of productivity (risk multiplied by cost) over the course of their labour.
When you do not properly incentivise people, they leave for greener pastures or, worse, stay and continue through a cycle of depression. It is bad for civilisation to have fields in which experience increases efficiency (nearly every field) being filled with new people to replace the people who realised that entering the field was a bad decision. That's not something you should plan for, but in a previous comment you said that there would be plenty of people waiting to take over when the experienced teachers left. That is not a good thing. We lose teachers because they realize that you are correct, there is no rational way to justify working as a teacher unless you're some green-beard altruist who doesn't believe in money. It just isn't worth the mental stress to work, if the payment is what you need out of it. No good system should rely on the intrinsic motivation of people to magically decide to do the right thing and throw themselves onto the pyre. How does the Marxist system suggest that we should handle labour which, by its nature, is more dangerous, more taxing, or has a lower expected career length, while also being essential to social progress? Any and all of those careers you listed should have increased compensation based on the serious risk of death.
I will look elsewhere for the answer to the problem of accountability, because you do appear steadfast that the question of who determines and assigns the values of goods and services is meaningless. I cannot fathom that apparent position, less reconcile it with your other statements, but very well.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A house costs a year? There's a house being built near me and it's been under construction for about a year by several teams of workers plus the owners every afternoon and weekend. (this is in Germany so it's not made of matches and paper). And that's not counting the hours needed to extract the raw materials and process them into bricks, insulation, glass, cables or pipes. There's a TON of labor to build a modern house.
load more comments
(19 replies)
What if you had a multiplier for things like education or years of experience... You could say 2x for every year of experience or 4x for degrees, you'd still never come close to justifying billionaires
Some systems consider receiving the education as on par with performing the job it prepares you for. I.E. you get paid to attend school and it doesn't work out like you have to put your life on hold until school is finished.
view more: next ›