Job complexes and remuneration thought
By Ricky Taylor at Feb 24, 2008 |
|
I'm quite new to the theory of parecon. I have been reading quite a bit, and I have an obvious inquisition. There is one thought that always comes to my mind regarding remuneration and job complex. It may sound obvious, which I think the answer is rightfully so; to just accept your job complex because that is what you want to do. But for the matter of my first blog, I've always wondered about remuneration for a profession or job that requires a lot of skills and learning versus one that does not. An example would be that of an engineer. Engineering requires plenty of education and learning to design correctly. Under parecon, would an engineer get allocated the same as any other job complex if both effort and sacrifice was identical? Under parecon, would it be right to assume people would 'want' to be an engineer, solely because its what they want to do, even though it requires plenty more effort and sacrifice to learn to be an engineer and also to produce as one while getting the same rewards and payment for a job complex that just requires common sense (considering time and effort was equal)? In other words, I am wondering if being an engineer, since it requires a lot more effort to learn and do as a job/profession, would get rewarded or allocated more versus a simple job/profession if time and effort was identical?
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking parecon (which I don't think I am), because it is exactly what the world needs, it's just a little bit of detailed information I haven't came across in the articles I have read. And no, I'm not an engineer, it's just an example.
RT



By Albert, Michael at Feb 27, 2008 07:25 AM
Hi,
Can you help out design and add your picture, please - he he...
you wonder: "But for the matter of my first blog, I\'ve always wondered about remuneration for a profession or job that requires a lot of skills and learning versus one that does not. An example would be that of an engineer."
Just for reference, you can find lots about this in the online book, Parecon, for example, or in the question and answer that is online, etc. etc.
But, briefly, training for a job is part of the job - part of the work. IF - and it is infact, in my view, a very big if - going to school to learn to be something - say an engineer - was horribly onerous, than it would be rmunerated at a high rate. I don\'t think that would happen - but that is a different issue....
Thus, suppose you train to become an engineer. You would do, as part o your job complex, the sophisticated and empowering part of engineering - and a mix of other responsibilties and tasks so you had a balanced job complex. youir remuenration would be for duration, intensity, and onerousness, and the most likely situation, given balancing of job complexes, is that you would get more or less the longer or harder, or shorter or less hard, you worked...onersouness being essentially average.
So what about the training...well, you would be remunerated for that too - it is work - your socially useful education is the product. But the idea that this would be considered highly onerous work eludes me entirely.
Just ask yourself, now, if you would prefer to be learning some discipline, skills, etc. etc. or doing an average onerous job, much less one that is worse....and I think you will perhaps see what I mean.
The ide that professional get high wages because they have made such a huge sacrifice goign to school is, in my view, ludicous...but, if it were true that goign to school - in a good society and good economy and good educational environemnt - no less - was a horrible drain on one\'s life, joy, etc., then, yes, it would be highly remunerated.....
Reply this comment