The former holds in a parecon only for people who can't work -- but it isn't base people -- I suspect in most parecons it would be average income...though a particular economy could settle on whatever it opted for...
> I find Philippe Van Parijs argument for a universal
> basic income unconvincing. The pay in accordance with effort
> would, in my opinion, eventually to an upper class.
> Some
> people would be willing to work 80 hours a week to gain an
> income advantage.
Let's suppose, as I think is probably pretty realistic, that in a parecon in the U.S. there was a thirty hour average work week.
One can opt to work more or less -- assuming at a balanced job complex, at typical exertion or effort level -- to earn proportionately that much more or less. One can only do this -- more or less like working overtime, however, if it is possible in one's work place -- if it is agreeable to others there, etc. There isn't endless work to just grab up.
But, let's say someone decides they want to work an eighty hour week -- for two and half times a very nice income...and others go along. The person has lost all that leisure, and gets remunerated for it. Maybe he or she wants to get a new home or a quite fancy telescope or something -- an amatuer but serious astronomer -- whatever.
I honestly don't see the problem -- though of course if there were one -- a society could put a limit on overtime.
> This advantage would eventually lead to an
> increase in their power.
How...they have a balanced job complex...they self manage like others, etc. They can't buy power....
But, if you are right, a parecon could simply put a limit on overtime...
> If this hypothetical person were on
> a board of the coordinator class they would be susceptible to
> being bribed.
There is no board of the coordinator class -- there is no coordinator class in a parecon.
> People with an income advantage would be
> willing to pay the bribe to be given choice jobs.
There are no choice jobs in the abstract -- though it is true I might want job a, and you might want job a, and I could threaten soemone4 for it, or I could offer someone gifts -- hard, indeed virtually impossible to bribe with cash in a parecon, in fact .
But parecon doesn't mean no violations, no unethical behavior -- it just makes the rewards very low and the obstacles high, and has an overall logic which is very social rather than very antisocial.
> The only
> way I see around the problem is to give all individuals the
> exact same income regardless of whether they work or not.
Well, I guess we will have to disagree. To eliminate something that I don't think is a problem you would be introducing horrible implications for incentives, etc.
> This would drastically reduce the coercive power of the
> coordinator class.
There is no coordinator class in a parecon -- no group monopolizes or even has a slightly disproportionate hold on empowering labor.
> Certainly there would be a percentage of
> "free riders" but that is preferable to a percentage
> increasing their work load to increase their income and by
> extension their power.
This is one of those cases where an image of the whole economic model being in hand would help a lot, I think -- and I can't provide it.
To eliminate what at the absolute outer limits would be a two to one income discrepancy -- matched by an equal leisure descrepancy -- which I don't think can translate into any kind of power discrepancy -- and which could be trivially limited by limiting overtime if there were some actual problem associated with it -- you want to allow some people an income with zero effort -- an infintie return on their labors...and to remove incentives to work...among other difficulties.
I guess I can only say this isn't something I would favor...
> A basic formula would be GDP -
> expenses for building and maintaining infrastructure / population.
How does society know, in fact, how much to produce...how long the average work level ought to be...among many other difficulties -- to attain some kind of absolute income equality which, seems to me to have no moral basis.
Why shouldn't I be able to work less, to earn less, or work more, to earn more?
> Not all individuals are capable of working 80 hours. I don't
> mean a disability of some kind but rather some people are
> simply born with more drive and energy.
Yes...and some people simply like like more, I suppose...and some have attributes that give them many daily options that others don't have, and so on. Parecon doesn't address any of that -- other than to not reward people for genetic luck (size, brilliance, reflexes, and so on).
> In remunerating them
> according to effort I do not see a way to avoid having
> individuals like this from becoming an upper class both in
> consumption and power.
The notion that a subet of the population is going to gain a dominating position by doing overtime work...seems hardly credible to me -- but, again -- if in some culture or context this was a real issue -- one need only put a limit on overtime.
> Under parecon their may be societal
> pressures not to behave that way but it would not stop 100%
> of the "driven" individuals from increasing their income and power.
You keep correlating a little extra income earned by doing overtime with power -- I don't see it.
> By it's nature the coordinators who are responsible for
> deciding who gets to be a doctor and who hauls trash have
> coercive powers over individuals.
This doesn't exist in parecon -- nothing remotely like it. There are no coordinators deciding everyone's life pursuits. There is no one who is a doctor only -- or who hauls trash only -- rather we all have balanced job complexes, comparable, one to another, in their empowerment and quality of life effects.
> Equal distribution of GDP would allow people more freedom in
> deciding their jobs. It would not allow a blind man to become
> an airline pilot but it gives no avoids the problem of the
> creation of an upper class.
I thank you for the comments -- I am going to have to disagree -- I would be curious if you hold to the views after reading a full presentation of parecon. But short of that, I think we can agree to disagree about this...