This blog post is in relation to a comment placed on one of our previous blog-posts - you can check out the full comment at http://economistjourneytolife.blogspot.com/2013/02/day-186-invisible-hand-is-invisible.html#.URaxbvJBnTo.
"We can’t have equal pay because of the variable levels of experience, skill, and education. People should earn what they deserve, based on their education and skills."
The problem within remunerating individuals based on their level of experience, skill and education is that we're judging certain levels of experience, skill and education as good and others as bad. Herein, take the example of paying a technician more than a doctor - both are equally valuable contributions to society, yet we'll pay the one more because of a higher education level. In creating such divisions, you're giving people incentives in terms of what jobs to do based on money - where people will become lawyers and doctors and engineers because there's money in it - and not necessarily because that's what they would really love to do. And obviously, when you're passionate about your job, you'll push yourself to be great at it - not because of someone else's expectation, but because of one's own self-integrity. And a doctor who actually cares about his patients will be a better doctor than one who did it because he could and it would give him a nice personal life.
Also consider that not everyone has the same capacities. Some are naturally skilled in managerial tasks, others are really good with their hands - but again, both are equally valuable - so we can't remunerate one person more than another based on skill either.
In terms of level of experience - each one requires the time to grow in their profession, but that doesn't mean that we don't require the same amount of financial support in the meantime.
For more perspective on this point - please read one of our previous posts: Day 181: Applied Equality in Equal Money Capitalism
"However, if we reduced the over inflated costs of crappy products, removed the fees for electronic services that don’t need manual labor, and diverted 50% of our national defense budget back into improving our infrastructure and economy. We would see new jobs, more tax income for the cause, and a happier, more productive community and labor force."
What we suggest in terms of pricing is to have prices determined through only considering the people who were involved in the production process. From a previous blog:
"Profit is not to be understood in the same way as it is now. At the moment - profit is what is left after wages have been paid and production costs are covered. Within EMC - there will be no wages - your profit will be your wage.
So - every time a product is scanned when it is bought - the computer sees what percentage of the price is allocated to whom - and immediately the money-allocation happens accordingly. So - there's no need to wait a year to calculate profits - it will be immediate.
So - understand - that within EMC - you only ever pay for added value - added value is the value you add to a resource through labour - that - and then of course your tax. So - you're not paying for your resources. When value is given by a person - the person receives in return through profit. When resources are used by companies - they must give back as much as they can. So if a company uses wood within their production process, there will be a department within the company that plants trees. The same with using water - if clean water is taken - the dirty water after the production process is complete, must be purified and go back to the Earth. So - resources won't be owned - it will be a matter of take what you need and give back as you received."
"It makes no sense to claim that one can 'own' a part of nature or the Earth - as physical resources - outside of oneself. Why? Because the Earth and nature were here long before us and they will remain here after we are gone - so how can we say that any of it is 'ours' - it's not ours."
To pay for resources, would imply giving money to the owner of the resource. But with the Earth being the owner, it makes to sense to give money to the Earth, because it means nothing to the Earth - money is only relevant in a human society. So - rather - we 'pay back' the Earth through supporting it in a physical manner. Each company will have an Environmental Department that is in charge of giving back what was received from the Earth insofar as this is possible.
Prices will thus be determined only considering that with the sales of the product, each one involved in the production process, ends up with an equal wage and this wage must be adequate to be able to live a meaningful life- which is a mathematical equation that can be worked out for each product and for each company. On these prices, taxes will be raised as government will still play a role within providing each one with their basic rights.
One of these basic rights will be employment. As you say - with technology able to replace menial tasks, we'll be able to create jobs where they are necessary - tasks that require to be done but aren't. The environmental departments of companies is one example. When unemployment is seen to arise - government requires to identify where further jobs can be created - or, another option is to reduce working hours or lower the pension age.
And yes - the role and magnitude of the defense forces must be reconsidered. If an EMC were implemented world-wide, they will likely no more exist as most wars are waged over economic reasons. When everyone is equally taken care of - there is no need to traumatize another country with physical violence to get it to comply to one's wishes.
"Unfortunately because people are elected into government based on their popularity. The politicians and powers that be are paid more than the average home, even though they have no special skills or experience. This leads to commerce and community decisions being made based entirely on the personal expectations, desires, and motives of the elected and now privileged group. With hardly any control from the people who elected them. Once they get there, they play a game of give and take with the community so they can keep their positions as long as they can. Serving in congress or the senate should be thought of as a privilege, there pay should be limited to that of an average household, to insure that they remain concerned for the welfare and health of the majority which they are still part of. In humanities quest for material items, fame, and fortune."
Totally agree. For politics, we suggest direct democracy where politicians are in essence merely administrators and not decision-makers and yes, where their wages are equal to those of everyone else. For more info on this, read: www.equalmoney.org/wiki/Politics
"We seem to have forgotten about the value of checks and balances. Anytime a system is out of balance, it is doomed to eventually fall apart and fail. Thus the proper individual course, is always one that leads to beneficial results for the community. Which then logically leads us to the success of our entire society. As it sits now, life is great if your above or near the fulcrum of our economy. But it can be grand or desperate depending on where you are on the arms, and that in itself is a sign of inequality and unbalance."
Yep, totally agree!