At 12:46 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Robin Hahnel wrote:
>More to the point, I think wages should be according to what I call effort,
>or personal sacrifice in either training for or carrying out one's economic
>duties. Things that require more effort, in this sense are working more hours,
>working at dangerous tasks, boring tasks, stressful tasks, training for more
>hours -- when others get leisure time instead, not when others are working
>instead. If we agree that this is a fair system of wages, and I think that's
>what 19th century socialist visionaries and 20th century socialist activists
>mostly had in mind, then the question is how can we arrange for such a system
>of payment without creating allocative and/or motivational inefficiencies.
An intersting point, indeed. This construes wage as a minimum necessary
incentive to "get the job done", rather than a reward for ellusive skills,
non-measurable performance, accumulated spiritual powers and what not, as
the human capital crowd seems to imply.
Which, in turn, brings the question of monetary vs. non-monetary incentives.
Socially desirable positions, such as university professor or business
executive, offer inducements in the form of social prestige, so it seems
they do not need further monetary incentives (contrary to HC arguments).
Socially undesirable positions, such as janitor or cafeteria worker on the
other hand, doe not offer such inducements, therefore they need greater
monetary incentives.
This brings an even more important issue -- the construction of a job. It
seems that most economists view jobs as "natural" clusters of skills and
tasks -- i.e. cleaning one's office, writing one's letters, or doing one's
math does not "naturally cluster" with a managerial job, whereas
"optimizing," "streamlining," "organizing," "meeting" and what not does --
unless such a view does not suit the interests of those who pay the
econo-piper. Thus, Taylorism (old and new) that deconstructs the "bundles"
of skilled "manual" jobs into precisely timed movements, or "tasks" (e.g.
under TQM) -- is justified in terms of superior efficiency.
The possibility of crafting jobs by bundling specific tasks is an important
issue for the socialism vs. market debate. As I understand the Old Man,
socialism is not about marginal product or any other abstraction invented by
the scribbling class, but about workers' control of their own work and work
serving human needs. Marginal product could be but one means to that end.
The other means could be re-designing jobs (crerated under the capitalist
mode of production to facilitate accumulation) so that work itself (rather
than making a product for the owner) is a rewarding experience.
That poses an interesting question: which society is better off, the one
with a greater product (marginal of gross) produced in a less humanly
satisfying manner, or the one with a smaller product produced in a more
humanly satisfying manner?
I am afraid, econometric equations cannot answer that because of their
inherent inability to conceptualize and register the intersts of "factors
of production" (i.e. machines and "manual" workers). The debate of how jobs
are designed goes beyond the issue of product distribution. The solution
of that issue seems to be the essence of socialism. Once that issue is
resolved, the distribution of the product, through markets, administrative
hierarchies, or a combination thereof, seems to be a secondary problem.
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
REDUCE MENTAL POLLUTION - LOBOTOMIZE PUNDITS!
+--+
|Wenn ich Kultur hoere, entsichere ich meinen Browning.|
| -Hanns Johst |
| |
|When I hear "family values," I reach for my revolver. |
|(no apologies to Hanns Johst) |
+--+
