People's businesses.

[JCC]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LPUjR5AReBU

Pretty inspiring, really.

[Underwater Ophelia]

That's really neat, but I'm not down with everyone getting paid the same thing.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

That's really neat, but I'm not down with everyone getting paid the same thing.

Why not? They all do pretty much the same job, for a start.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Not really.

Say someone has to cut tiles, and someone has to answer a phone for tile orders.

One job is harder, more dangerous, and more important.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Not really.

Say someone has to cut tiles, and someone has to answer a phone for tile orders.

One job is harder, more dangerous, and more important.

Neither job is more important and neither job is harder. Someone without the social interaction skills to arrange the tile orders can cut the tiles, someone without the physical strength to cut the tiles can arrange tile orders.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

Neither job is more important and neither job is harder. Someone without the social interaction skills to arrange the tile orders can cut the tiles, someone without the physical strength to cut the tiles can arrange tile orders.

It's harder than you think to arrange large sales, and probably harder than we both think to cut tiles. They're not the same.

[KontanKarite]

No, they're not the same job. But in that sense, I can see them getting paid the same for different jobs, but being paid an extra amount for the various degrees of hazards one might face on that job.

A phone call isn't likely to ever hurt you except for your feelings perhaps. But something that cuts tile could easily do some kind of bodily harm.

[KontanKarite]

However, I think the video poses a bigger point other than what job is harder or more valuable.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

However, I think the video poses a bigger point other than what job is harder or more valuable.

Of course, that's true.
We just got into that because I mentioned I don't dig everyone getting equal pay.

[KontanKarite]

I can see equal pay, just so long as people get a bit of compensation for any degree of danger they might face. In this instance, I'd much rather someone chew me out over the phone before getting my hand cut in half by a tile cutter. So yeah... hazard pay please.

[Kambili]

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

No, they're not the same job. But in that sense, I can see them getting paid the same for different jobs, but being paid an extra amount for the various degrees of hazards one might face on that job.

A phone call isn't likely to ever hurt you except for your feelings perhaps. But something that cuts tile could easily do some kind of bodily harm.

Yeah, I basically agree with this - a basic wage, with a little top-up reflecting any extra risks involved in doing the job.

Great video though. Good for them.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

It's harder than you think to arrange large sales, and probably harder than we both think to cut tiles. They're not the same.

And the first way you think of to balance this, entirely hypothetical, inequality within difficulty is to make one person's subsistence more difficult than another's as opposed to changing working hours i.e. easier and safer jobs with less exertion are done over longer hours than harder, more dangerous jobs with more exertion are done over shorter hours?

[Kambili]

Originally Posted by JCC

And the first way you think of to balance this, entirely hypothetical, inequality within difficulty is to make one person's subsistence more difficult than another's as opposed to changing working hours i.e. easier and safer jobs with less exertion are done over longer hours than harder, more dangerous jobs with more exertion are done over shorter hours?

But if the pay is hourly, then you're essentially paying less to the person doing the dangerous job for shorter periods, because they're working less hours. If it's salaried, and hours aren't reflected in the wage, then surely you're basically paying them a higher rate anyway? If it's neither of these, then you're talking about split shifts, which are a pain in the ass to work.

[JCC]

Why should you pay hourly rather than daily?

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by JCC

And the first way you think of to balance this, entirely hypothetical, inequality within difficulty is to make one person's subsistence more difficult than another's as opposed to changing working hours i.e. easier and safer jobs with less exertion are done over longer hours than harder, more dangerous jobs with more exertion are done over shorter hours?

This I can almost agree with. This is also something I've been thinking about as workers at a local plant work 10 hours a day 5 to 6 days a week while many people in the city are unemployed.

Plus, you'll have to factor in quality of life. Sure, a phone job is quite easy, but imagine having to do it 10 hours a day for 5 or 6 days a week while tile cutters are working about 6 hours a day 5 or 6 days a week. THEN, they're all getting paid the exact same amount of pay. I'm not 100% opposed to this though. In fact,I support it completely. But from the looks of it, each worker there is well informed of their efforts and what they're doing. I suppose the bigger point here, is despite our logic telling us a hard working tile cutter deserves some kind of hazard pay, they're doing it anyway at the exact same wage.

A question I didn't see asked in the video was, "Are you happy with your compensation for what you do? How is your quality of life?"

[Kambili]

Originally Posted by JCC

Why should you pay hourly rather than daily?

The issue remains the exactly same. Let's say you pay someone $80 a day to work the telephones, and their standard shift is 8 hours. Then suppose you pay somebody $80 a day to do a more dangerous job, but only allow them to work for 5 hours. This basically means they're getting a higher rate, which I'm in favor of provided that the gap is subject to risk calculation and not the whims of those in charge - which it presumably would be, in this factory.

If you cut their wages down to reflect the shorter workday, you're paying them equally, but taking money out of their pocket because they can't, for safety reasons, work the 8 hour day.

Unless I've misunderstood you, what you're suggesting is giving them the same amount of money based on the work they do, but subject to differences in the number of hours worked. This is basically the same thing as paying them a slightly higher rate because their job is dangerous.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

And the first way you think of to balance this, entirely hypothetical, inequality within difficulty is to make one person's subsistence more difficult than another's as opposed to changing working hours i.e. easier and safer jobs with less exertion are done over longer hours than harder, more dangerous jobs with more exertion are done over shorter hours?

You could do that, sure.
If people don't mind working fewer hours.
Hint--they do mind.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Kambili

The issue remains the exactly same. Let's say you pay someone $80 a day to work the telephones, and their standard shift is 8 hours. Then suppose you pay somebody $80 a day to do a more dangerous job, but only allow them to work for 5 hours. This basically means they're getting a higher rate, which I'm in favor of provided that the gap is subject to risk calculation and not the whims of those in charge - which it presumably would be, in this factory.

They're getting a higher hourly rate to do a more dangerous job, I don't see any problem in that since both parties walk away with the same amount.

As for the whims of people in charge, the overall collective is in charge, so the whims of the people in charge is democracy.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

You could do that, sure.
If people don't mind working fewer hours.
Hint--they do mind.

"Hey man, would you mind working a couple hours more to do an easier job like answer the phones than the guy who puts himself in danger and does a harder job?"

Anyone who has a problem with that is an ass and your assumption is completely unfounded.

[Kambili]

Originally Posted by JCC

They're getting a higher hourly rate to do a more dangerous job, I don't see any problem in that since both parties walk away with the same amount.

So you think that a more dangerous job deserves a slightly higher rate of pay? Good, we are in agreement.

Originally Posted by JCC

As for the whims of people in charge, the overall collective is in charge, so the whims of the people in charge is democracy.

I don't think I put this very clearly - when I talked about the whims of people in charge, I was talking about the current system in this country. In the factory in question, I agree that the assessment of the relationship between risk and pay would apparently be transparent and subject to the votes of the majority.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Kambili

So you think that a more dangerous job deserves a slightly higher rate of pay? Good, we are in agreement.

A higher rate of pay, but the inference I made from Ophelia's posts was that she thought that the person with the more dangerous job should walk away with more pay overall, which I think is unnecessary inequality.

[Kambili]

Originally Posted by JCC

A higher rate of pay, but the inference I made from Ophelia's posts was that she thought that the person with the more dangerous job should walk away with more pay overall, which I think is unnecessary inequality.

Well, what we're talking about is a very similar thing - just controlled to make sure that the pay reflects the job and nothing more.

[Godslayer Jillian]

JCC speaks in a manner that reminds me of Proudhon, which I think is great.
All these people have the same amount of voice in the decisions of this industry. And with that, they decided to have everyone have the same salary because it's more important for them that no one struggles more than anyone else to take care for the rest of the families, than for those who theoretically do more (which can't actually be measured) get more.

And let's see the outcomes of that:
Previously, with a wage system, and owners, the company got a lot of subsidies and still it went bankrupt.
Today, with equal wages and workers' management, the tiles can be bought cheaper while revenues for the workers go up.

Collectivization and the wage system are the ultimate prisoner's dilemma:
Believing that someone deserves more money in an interdependent community is naive for two reasons - we cannot measure the importance of one job, and it assumes that people will pay lip service without a wage system when empirical evidence has shown us the opposite.
A wage system allows for immediate compensation of the individual at the expense of everyone else including himself in the long run. These Argentinians knew better than that.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

JCC speaks in a manner that reminds me of Proudhon, which I think is great.

Aw, shucks. Thanks doll.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

"Hey man, would you mind working a couple hours more to do an easier job like answer the phones than the guy who puts himself in danger and does a harder job?"

Anyone who has a problem with that is an ass and your assumption is completely unfounded.

The problem isn't that person working more, the problem is the person working less.

A lot of people can't afford to work fewer hours.