Paid in hours not money to renew society

[CatholicGeek1]

Della;10774959**:

But it’s not money, that’s the point. No one would be earning money.

I addressed this in my last posts, which I don’t think you’ve seen.

If no one was earning money, and everyone got the same “hours” for the time that they worked, you would have a lot of people staying home and “working” on the house, the kids, etc. You would have a lot of people working at low stress jobs. You would not have people working in fields that require a lot of time, education, and training because there would simply be no motivation for such work.

 

[Della]

If no one was earning money, and everyone got the same “hours” for the time that they worked, you would have a lot of people staying home and “working” on the house, the kids, etc. You would have a lot of people working at low stress jobs. You would not have people working in fields that require a lot of time, education, and training because there would simply be no motivation for such work.

I think we are so immersed in a certain way of thinking about work and earning money that we simply can’t picture people farming for shear love of it. If people want to eat they have to grow food. If people want to be healed we have to have medical people. If people want to live in cleanliness, we have to have those who do maintenance, be it in the home or elsewhere. We’d have to rewire our whole way of looking at worth, work, and value. As St. Paul said when they tried communal living, he who doesn’t work should not eat. Each person would contribute their abilities and efforts for their own benefit and that of the whole of society. I’m not saying we can do this as the world is now. But if we were to start over, it would be a better system than allowing people to starve or live in poverty simply because they can’t do certain kinds of work. It’s an ideal that sadly won’t work the way we currently value each other and what we are able to do.

 

[Gia_B]

But it’s not money, that’s the point. No one would be earning money.?QUOTE]

But you’re saying it works like money. You work, you get time-credits and then you get things you want. Either the time-credits given up have some correspondence to what you receive in return and are thus like money or they don’t correspond at all in which case the time-credits are completely meaningless and there is no system of value or exchange at all. You could base it on an exchange of services, but even then it doesn’t make sense. Back to the homemaker example, why should anyone receive credits for services from someone else for looking after her own family? that doesn’t make sense.

I addressed this in my last posts, which I don’t think you’ve seen.

 

[Della]

Della;10774959:

But it’s not money, that’s the point. No one would be earning money.?QUOTE]

But you’re saying it works like money. You work, you get time-credits and then you get things you want. Either the time-credits given up have some correspondence to what you receive in return and are thus like money or they don’t correspond at all in which case the time-credits are completely meaningless and there is no system of value or exchange at all. You could base it on an exchange of services, but even then it doesn’t make sense. Back to the homemaker example, why should anyone receive credits for services from someone else for looking after her own family? that doesn’t make sense.

I did actually read it. I just think your point was a bad one. You acknowledge that not all labor is equal, but because not everyone can do everything, it’s not their fault and they should be compensated equally anyway. Also, you view of work-based skills is pretty one dimensional.There’s more to it than someone who works hard, but “isn’t bright enough” to be a doctor. Like labor, skills have different values.One of the most important is knowing how to apply yourself in the most efficient way possible. Yes, it could be some guy’s dream to make a living an acoustic guitar for small groups of very bored people, but if he could have focused his efforts on being a perfectly adequate grocery store manager with guitar playing as a hobby, then the potential difference in his income due to his mismanagement of resources is on his shoulders. Some skills/labor are more valuable than others and if you choose to pursue a less valuable option, don’t complain if you get less compensation.

Honestly, right now I can’t tell if you’re trolling or if you just do not understand economics at all.

I’m sorry if I upset you. Truly, I’m not trolling. I’ve been a member a long time on CAF and I have too much respect for people to do that.

It would be the whole of society that would see the time given in the home or workplace as valuable to the greater good. I’m not talking about economics–that entails money and exchanging goods, if understand it correctly.

It’s a social proposal–a way of living in which everyone’s talents and efforts are valued for what they contribute to society. Does that help or make sense? It’s something like, and would be compatable with, distributism as proposed by G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I think we are so immersed in a certain way of thinking about work and earning money that we simply can’t picture people farming for shear love of it. If people want to eat they have to grow food. If people want to be healed we have to have medical people. If people want to live in cleanliness, we have to have those who do maintenance, be it in the home or elsewhere. We’d have to rewire our whole way of looking at worth, work, and value. As St. Paul said when they tried communal living, he who doesn’t work should not eat. Each person would contribute their abilities and efforts for their own benefit and that of the whole of society. I’m not saying we can do this as the world is now. But if we were to start over, it would be a better system than allowing people to starve or live in poverty simply because they can’t do certain kinds of work. It’s an ideal that sadly won’t work the way we currently value each other and what we are able to do.

It won’t work because it is Utopian, and Utopia is reserved for Heaven.

 

[Della]

It won’t work because it is Utopian, and Utopia is reserved for Heaven.

Yes, sadly, that’s true. It’s frustrating when trying to work towards what one knows is right in a world that just can’t accept it. Still, we are God’s kingdom on earth and so are not really citizens of this world but of the next one. Trying to instill the values of heaven into the world seems to be a losing battle, but it must be fought all the same. We can make small improvements as we are able, of course. It’s just a pity we can’t affect true reform on a large scale.

 

[Gia_B]

Gia B;10775245:

I’m sorry if I upset you. Truly, I’m not trolling. I’ve been a member a long time on CAF and I have too much respect for people to do that.

It would be the whole of society that would see the time given in the home or workplace as valuable to the greater good. I’m not talking about economics–that entails money and exchanging goods, if understand it correctly.

It’s a social proposal–a way of living in which everyone’s talents and efforts are valued for what they contribute to society. Does that help or make sense? It’s something like, and would be compatable with, distributism as proposed by G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc.

My problem is that this whole scenario has a lot of holes in it and you can’t seem to explain how this works beyond “everyone thinks everything is valuable .” Who decided how goods are distributes? Who decides if an action actually contributes something to the greater good or not? How much work has to be done before some sort of “credit” is earned? Does it depend on the time taken? How hard the work is? How would one action be judged more difficult than another?

In addition, there are the questions from my previous post:
Where do these credits come from?
How can someone earn credits if they (and their family, who are, in a sense, merely an extension of themselves) are the primary beneficiary of their own actions.
If the credits received can be exchanged for goods in a certain ratio, how are they not like money? If there isn’t a certain ratio, then what do the credits do?
If someone intentionally chooses to engage in an activity that is less economically valuable than an available alternative, shouldn’t they get less compensation?

You have an idea, but there is no system in place to direct how it would actually function other than people being inherently nicer in this fantasy world. If you had some outline of how this would all work, that would be something. If you were to admit that you have no idea how this would work and this was just an idea you were kicking around that you weren’t to serious about to begin with, that too would be something. As of right now, I haven’t had any answer addressing my concerns whatsoever and that’s what’s frustrating me.

 

[Della]

Della;10775325:

My problem is that this whole scenario has a lot of holes in it and you can’t seem to explain how this works beyond “everyone thinks everything is valuable .” Who decided how goods are distributes? Who decides if an action actually contributes something to the greater good or not? How much work has to be done before some sort of “credit” is earned? Does it depend on the time taken? How hard the work is? How would one action be judged more difficult than another?

In addition, there are the questions from my previous post:
Where do these credits come from?
How can someone earn credits if they (and their family, who are, in a sense, merely an extension of themselves) are the primary beneficiary of their own actions.
If the credits received can be exchanged for goods in a certain ratio, how are they not like money? If there isn’t a certain ratio, then what do the credits do?
If someone intentionally chooses to engage in an activity that is less economically valuable than an available alternative, shouldn’t they get less compensation?

You have an idea, but there is no system in place to direct how it would actually function other than people being inherently nicer in this fantasy world. If you had some outline of how this would all work, that would be something. If you were to admit that you have no idea how this would work and this was just an idea you were kicking around that you weren’t to serious about to begin with, that too would be something. As of right now, I haven’t had any answer addressing my concerns whatsoever and that’s what’s frustrating me.

It wouldn’t work according to what you’ve laid out, you see. Why does anyone have to account for how hard they worked? If everyone does what they’re expected to do that would be enough. Farmers would grow food. Parents would rear children (one being the main stay in the home), people would make goods, people would be trained in medicine, and so on. I’m sorry I can’t make it make sense for you. That’s no doubt my fault. I really can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

 

[Reepicheep]

An idea came to me last night that I can’t believe is original with me (I’m no genius) but which I’ve never heard proposed or discussed.

I was thinking, instead of paying people in money, which means you can only buy what you can afford, be it luxury items or necessities like health care, why not pay people “hours” instead of money for the work they do? This would include homemakers and volunteers not just those who go to an office, clinic, factory, store, etc.

It’d be a form of credit. Say you work at home as a homemaker or parent bringing up children. All the time you put in doing that would go to your credit. The same with any and all work. And when you can no longer work, you would be taken care of. Everything would be free only in the sense that no money would pass hands, only work hour credits.

Is this idea completely insane or would it actually work?

If you spend “work hour credits” to obtain what you want, how is that different from spending currency?
If that is not what you mean, then how would it work?

 

[InigoMontoya]

It wouldn’t work according to what you’ve laid out, you see. Why does anyone have to account for how hard they worked? If everyone does what they’re expected to do that would be enough. Farmers would grow food. Parents would rear children (one being the main stay in the home), people would make goods, people would be trained in medicine, and so on. I’m sorry I can’t make it make sense for you. That’s no doubt my fault. I really can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

That’s all good and fair, for a simplistic Middle Ages - Amish style existence of subsistence farming or what not. Where no occupation is particularly unique, to a great extent, from the community as a whole.

However you’ve mentioned modern day conveniences of manufacturing, motorcycles, and that you still want jewelry!

The frequently higher skill set occupations involved in those, often include stressful, dangerous, and adverse working conditions. Not to mention, potentially long years of specialized education. In your scenario, who would choose those vocations… when they could choose far more relaxing and carefree jobs?

 

[Gia_B]

Gia B;10775879:

It wouldn’t work according to what you’ve laid out, you see. Why does anyone have to account for how hard they worked? If everyone does what they’re expected to do that would be enough. Farmers would grow food. Parents would rear children (one being the main stay in the home), people would make goods, people would be trained in medicine, and so on. I’m sorry I can’t make it make sense for you. That’s no doubt my fault. I really can’t explain it any better than that. Sorry.

:banghead: And not a single question was answered that day.
Let’s go through this line by line

Why does anyone have to account for how hard they worked?

So someone who spends his day on Facebook should have as much access to stuff as someone who works from sun up to sun set in a field? Why should anyone take a strenuous job if all work is equally valuable and they can expect the same benefits no matter what they do?

If everyone does what they’re expected to do that would be enough.

As established above, no one needs to work hard, so what is expected of them is apparently very little.

Farmers would grow food. Parents would rear children (one being the main stay in the home), people would make goods, people would be trained in medicine, and so on.

Okay, so the farmers grow a bunch of food and people make a variety of goods. Then what? Does the farmer give away his crops for free in any quantity to just anyone who comes along? Do they barter for the goods? Are all the goods sent to a central location to be meted out according to people’s needs? If so, who determines what people’s needs are?
Let’s say one of these goods produced is a specialty item, a fancy watch, for example. Few people make them (thus there are very few), but many people want them. Who gets a fancy watch? The first person to walk up to a watch-maker once the watch is completed? The person who can supply the most goods in return?

Right now, your process looks like Step 1: Some one does work Step 2: ??? Step 3: Everyone profits. I need more detail on Step 2.

 

[Della]

Della;10775983:

:banghead: And not a single question was answered that day.
Let’s go through this line by line

So someone who spends his day on Facebook should have as much access to stuff as someone who works from sun up to sun set in a field? Why should anyone take a strenuous job if all work is equally valuable and they can expect the same benefits no matter what they do?

As established above, no one needs to work hard, so what is expected of them is apparently very little.

People would do these things out of love of doing them and to benefit everyone. I believe society could be restructured along such lines if people are willing to do it.

Okay, so the farmers grow a bunch of food and people make a variety of goods. Then what? Does the farmer give away his crops for free in any quantity to just anyone who comes along? Do they barter for the goods? Are all the goods sent to a central location to be meted out according to people’s needs? If so, who determines what people’s needs are?
Let’s say one of these goods produced is a specialty item, a fancy watch, for example. Few people make them (thus there are very few), but many people want them. Who gets a fancy watch? The first person to walk up to a watch-maker once the watch is completed? The person who can supply the most goods in return?

Right now, your process looks like Step 1: Some one does work Step 2: ??? Step 3: Everyone profits. I need more detail on Step 2.

Well, some crops are generalized, such as grains, and would be distributed according to need, but others can be grown in kitchen gardens. Any specialty item would be specially ordered. There are people who throw themselves off cliffs and put their lives in danger just for fun–how much better to do a job that benefits everyone that may have some danger to it? Families would be more autonomous and care more for their own. Well, I have to go to bed now. We can discuss more tomorrow.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Have you thought of moving to Cuba? Unfortunately, you don’t get to choose your job.

 

[Gia_B]

People would do these things out of love of doing them and to benefit everyone. I believe society could be restructured along such lines if people are willing to do it.

This is pretty naive. Yes, some people love doing things, there are some who would prefer to do nothing. People will take the easiest root as often as they can and if they can get the same amount of benefit no matter how easy what they do is, no matter how little effort they put into it, why should they put effort into work? Why should someone have a job in construction when he can get just as much stuff from doodling in a note book and calling himself an artist?

Well, some crops are generalized, such as grains, and would be distributed according to need, but others can be grown in kitchen gardens.

Who decided how much is generalized? Who decides what “according to need” means?

Any specialty item would be specially ordered.

That still doesn’t address who gets the specialty items and how the makers is compensated. What if there is a scarcity of that item? Would there just be a long waiting list for that item or would the compensation for the maker go up?
Going back to some older questions, you still have not clarified how “credits” work. How much work must individuals do to receive credits? Whom do they receive credits from? How are the credits redeemed?

There are people who throw themselves off cliffs and put their lives in danger just for fun–how much better to do a job that benefits everyone that may have some danger to it?

You know what the difference is between bungy jumping and being a police officer? Bungy jumpers know that they are actually fairly safe the entire time. If someone is a police officer or a coal miner or a crab fisherman, he is in actual peril. No one shows up at any of those jobs thinking “Oh boy, I might die today.” They do those jobs in spite of the risks, not because of them. Since they take on greater risks, shouldn’t they receive greater rewards?

 

[Della]

This is pretty naive. Yes, some people love doing things, there are some who would prefer to do nothing. People will take the easiest root as often as they can and if they can get the same amount of benefit no matter how easy what they do is, no matter how little effort they put into it, why should they put effort into work? Why should someone have a job in construction when he can get just as much stuff from doodling in a note book and calling himself an artist?

Everyone would be trained according to his capacity to do work that would benefit himself and the larger community. So, no one would be able to simply doodle for a living.

Who decided how much is generalized? Who decides what “according to need” means?

Common sense decides this. A family can easily grow beans and tomatoes, but to produce bread a larger area is needed to grow enough grain. Some people would be bakers who use the grains to make breads and others make flour while families could also use the flour to make their own breads. I don’t see why this would be so difficult.

That still doesn’t address who gets the specialty items and how the makers is compensated. What if there is a scarcity of that item? Would there just be a long waiting list for that item or would the compensation for the maker go up?

There is no compensation for anything. Specialty items would be made as demand comes in for them. Again, this is not impossible to do.

Going back to some older questions, you still have not clarified how “credits” work. How much work must individuals do to receive credits? Whom do they receive credits from? How are the credits redeemed?

I used a bad word there. No one receives any credits. Everyone works and contributes in his own way. The work itself is the compensation for everyone.

You know what the difference is between bungy jumping and being a police officer? Bungy jumpers know that they are actually fairly safe the entire time. If someone is a police officer or a coal miner or a crab fisherman, he is in actual peril. No one shows up at any of those jobs thinking “Oh boy, I might die today.” They do those jobs in spite of the risks, not because of them. Since they take on greater risks, shouldn’t they receive greater rewards?

Why do people become police officers, fire fighters, crab fishermen? Because of the high pay and benefits? No, it’s because that’s the kind of work they want to do. Many people love serving others, working in all kinds of weather, making things with their hands. It’s natural and the way humans did thing for centuries. There’s no reason why we can’t do that again.

 

[InigoMontoya]

Della,

You might want to consider, that perhaps your presumptions about what motivates or incentives people to pursue certain professions may be a bit off.

Using your example of Police Officers and Firefights, in many communities they are quite well paying positions with extraordinary benefits. Hence, people purse those professions.

That doesn’t mean that they don’t love their profession, but it certainly plays a part in their choices.

Most people who go into medicine, do so because they say something cliche like they want to help people. Which may be, partly true. Yet the most “helpful” specialties struggle to find doctors willing to take them on. While arguably the “least helpful” but far more highly compensated with less occupational tress specialties like dermatology, have an overabundance of applicants.

While economic or human resource studies have shown that there are other factors at play, the overwhelming factor is compensation… when measuring the interest or demand for for profession.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with an employer, who was struggling to find any applicants interested in a six figure job. They were besides themselves, their business was close to failing because no one wanted to work for them. Yet, they were hiring for a skilled trade profession which many of it’s members live and breath that type of work… but they demand far more compensation than just 100k.

It appears you’re not willing to embrace a rustic lifestyle, so Amish or Commune lifestyles may be out.

Have you considered moving to Cuba though? That’s perhaps the closest to what you’re describing. Just keep in mind that aptitude or desire for a profession, is secondary to the needs of the state. Even Che was disgusted by that when he realized it. You may be sent to work in an asbestos mine versus raising your own children. No worries though, as Bubbles the local drug addict drew that job lottery card!

 

[Della]

Della,

You might want to consider, that perhaps your presumptions about what motivates or incentives people to pursue certain professions may be a bit off.

Using your example of Police Officers and Firefights, in many communities they are quite well paying positions with extraordinary benefits. Hence, people purse those professions.

That doesn’t mean that they don’t love their profession, but it certainly plays a part in their choices.

Most people who go into medicine, do so because they say something cliche like they want to help people. Which may be, partly true. Yet the most “helpful” specialties struggle to find doctors willing to take them on. While arguably the “least helpful” but far more highly compensated with less occupational tress specialties like dermatology, have an overabundance of applicants.

While economic or human resource studies have shown that there are other factors at play, the overwhelming factor is compensation… when measuring the interest or demand for for profession.

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with an employer, who was struggling to find any applicants interested in a six figure job. They were besides themselves, their business was close to failing because no one wanted to work for them. Yet, they were hiring for a skilled trade profession which many of it’s members live and breath that type of work… but they demand far more compensation than just 100k.

It appears you’re not willing to embrace a rustic lifestyle, so Amish or Commune lifestyles may be out.

Have you considered moving to Cuba though? That’s perhaps the closest to what you’re describing. Just keep in mind that aptitude or desire for a profession, is secondary to the needs of the state. Even Che was disgusted by that when he realized it. You may be sent to work in an asbestos mine versus raising your own children. No worries though, as Bubbles the local drug addict drew that job lottery card!

Laying aside people’s motivations in a post-Christian society, I am proposing a very basic life, not unlike the Amish except that it would embrace techonologies are that are truly beneficial to everyone. It’s only communal in that it would exist as communities of families, not as communes.

As I stated before, this is not another form of socialism or communism, but of a form of distributism, which is more natural and basic form of society based on the family and individual ownership of property.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

The finest examples of communities where all is held in common for the common good are…monasteries!

 

[Gia_B]

Everyone would be trained according to his capacity to do work that would benefit himself and the larger community. So, no one would be able to simply doodle for a living.

And what if someone didn’t want to be trained in what was judged to be how he could best serve the community. What someone most wants to do and the thing that would do the most benefit for them are not always the same, something that I have pointed out before, but it always seems to get ignored (like 90% of the other points I bring up).

Common sense decides this. A family can easily grow beans and tomatoes, but to produce bread a larger area is needed to grow enough grain. Some people would be bakers who use the grains to make breads and others make flour while families could also use the flour to make their own breads. I don’t see why this would be so difficult.

Have you looked at politics? Have you looked at the Social Justice forum? If you had actually considered these things, it would be clear to you that people have different definitions of both common sense and the greater good. In reality, the distribution of goods is a very, very complex and complicated issue.

There is no compensation for anything. ?QUOTE]
It’s nice to know that someone can spend long hours making an item to exact specifications and receive absolutely nothing in return other than the vague notion that “common sense” will get them what they need.

Specialty items would be made as demand comes in for them. Again, this is not impossible to do.

For the third time: scarcity. What if only a few of an item can be produced, but a great many people want it? How does that work?

I used a bad word there. No one receives any credits. Everyone works and contributes in his own way. The work itself is the compensation for everyone.

This is the third time I have asked about credits and only now are you saying that they don’t exist. It is very frustrating to be unable to get a straight answer and you shy away from most of my questions. I really wish that when you don’t know the answer to one of my questions you would just tell me instead of glossing it over with “people are nice.”

Why do people become police officers, fire fighters, crab fishermen? Because of the high pay and benefits? No, it’s because that’s the kind of work they want to do. Many people love serving others, working in all kinds of weather, making things with their hands. It’s natural and the way humans did thing for centuries. There’s no reason why we can’t do that again.

Inigo has already addressed this to my satisfaction.

 

[1ke]

Laying aside people’s motivations in a post-Christian society, I am proposing a very basic life, not unlike the Amish except that it would embrace techonologies are that are truly beneficial to everyone. It’s only communal in that it would exist as communities of families, not as communes.

As I stated before, this is not another form of socialism or communism, but of a form of distributism, which is more natural and basic form of society based on the family and individual ownership of property.

Della, I don’t think you have an accurate understanding of the Amish.