On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Michael Albert wrote:
> If it turns out that a type of task is more demanding, less pleasurable,
> than if we remunerate effort and sacrifice doing that does get
> remunerated more. Whether some task does, or not, is another matter.
>
> For example, if we were to keep the current division of labor -- I would
> say that being a short order cook, working on an assembly line, coal
> mining, and so on and so foth through a gazillion jobs, would be
> remunerated more than being a manager...but, that is for a social
> determination...the value/ethic is what we can talk about.
I should admit my understanding of parecon is far from comprehensive, but the statement above troubles me. The assumption here is that the definitions of "pleasurable", "demanding", "sacrifice" are nonproblematic terms with universally agreed upon meanings. Is it a "sacrifice" for me to spend many years learning biochemistry to be a pharma researcher? If I value family, or my religious practices, or close friendships, sure. However, if I love the work, the challenge, and see other things (like family obligations) as a nuisance, I'm not really "sacrificing" anything! The definition of "sacrifice" is contingent and diverse, not universally agreed upon.
Similarly with "pleasurable": my uncle works as a handyman in apt. complexes, and he loves the puzzles (how do I fix this electrical problem?) and the tangible outcome of his work (hey, the sink works now! I'm brilliant!). Put me in that activity, and it would be far from "pleasurable".
So I guess my question is: How does parecon deal with the fact that reasonable people differ dramatically in their perceptions of the same task? Who gets to determine whether a task is categorized as demanding or pleasurable?
Miles