Economics thread. Have you had enough of wizard of oz monetary scientists?

[Cavegirl]

Why would anyone do a difficult/responsible job for the same pay as an easy job?

 

Because they love it?

[I1L2T3]

But its already to late for that, if we started an equal wealth society then most of the people would feel poor because we are used to what we have. It wouldn't matter to me that everyone was as poor as me; all that would matter is that I could no longer do the things I used to do.

 

The problem is that what we have got used to has been provided by an unsustainable system. It can't continue.

 

And it is never too late for a big crash to happen that effectively levels out most of a society. It happened in Argentina.

 

I would suggest that when it happens to us, as it will, we don't try and revive the systems that caused the problems. It would be a time for renewal with new ideas needed.

[truman]

Because they love it?

 

A lot of people love their job because of the lifestyle it brings them..take the money away and how many would still do it...?

[Cavegirl]

A lot of people love their job because of the lifestyle it brings them..take the money away and how many would still do it...?

 

Because the money wouldn't matter- everybody's on equal pay in this fantasy world remember? If they were doing the job it would be because they'd chosen to do it without monetary gain coming into the decision. If nobody wanted to do the job it would join the unwanted list that I mentioned.

[I1L2T3]

Why would anyone do a difficult/responsible job for the same pay as an easy job?why would anyone strive to better themselves if they get the same as someone who doesn't give a damn?How does society improve...?

 

The problem with that argument is we already don't live in a fair society. Pretending that we do is a pretty daft way to argue against increasing fairness.

[MrSmith]

Yes I do, as long as you get rid of jobs that aren't essential or are too mundane for anybody to want to do.

 

So for example, you could be paid for inventing machines that did jobs that people don't want to do, that seems perfectly within our technological capacity. Acheive this and we'd have full employment of people doing jobs that they actually want to do, whatever that job may be. Due to an excess supply of people (having removed unnecessary and unwanted jobs) we'd all have to work far fewer hours in order to gain that pay and we could focus more heavily upon our educations and our leisure time. Alternatively we could continue to volunteer for work each week safe in the knowledge that we're already fully provided for.

 

As people would be more focussed upon social value than economic value we'd also be able to involve more people in the overall economy of the society. So there'd be no discriminating against mentally or physically impaired people because they don't fit that idealistic capitalist model of what a 'perfect worker' is.

 

If everyone's paid equally for doing something that they individually love to do I don't see any problem at all.

 

For that to work you would first have to remove all humans from the planet and start with a different species.

Who would want to do the dangerous jobs or dirty jobs, who would want to spend years in education to become a surgeon if they only receive the same money and a road sweeper.

[I1L2T3]

A lot of people love their job because of the lifestyle it brings them..take the money away and how many would still do it...?

 

Another silly argument. You know well that motivation for work is money (for hard practical reasons) with job satisfaction as a bonus. For practical reasons, for most people, it doesn't work the other way round. But some people if they really enjoyed a job would accept lower wages than they could get elsewhere. And many people do make that choice.

[MrSmith]

Why would the rules of society prevent this? They don't prevent people from acheiving they're just aimed at people valuing society over economics. So an acheivement might be assisting somebody to realise their dream rather than buying a bigger car. Which would you rather strive for?

 

You are proposing a system that would prevent some people becoming wealthier than other people, which would cause resentment from people that feel differently to you, we are all different and for your society to work we would all have to be the same.

[Cavegirl]

You would be better off for a very short time, the wealth creators would have no incentive to run businesses, some of the workers would have no incentive to work, people would have no incentive to become better educated and work hard, everything would come to a standstill and ultimately we would all have an equal share of nothing.

 

You're talking about the problems with Soviet communism here. This was an economy that was completely state controlled even down to what toothbrush you were allowed to buy. Keep the state out of the economic equation and you have something very very different in my opinion. People will do things for themselves that they'd never do for an authoritarian figure. That's how people create their own businesses despite government red tape.

[truman]

The problem with that argument is we already don't live in a fair society. Pretending that we do is a pretty daft way to argue against increasing fairness.

 

I never said we did live in a fair society...just wondered who'd do the jobs that need dedication and training if they only got paid the same as the "easy" jobs..? My question was would society be better if those difficult jobs weren't done?