If you offer extra incentives in the form of financial compensation to people to entice them into becoming doctors you are indeed rewarding one for the luck of the draw genetically. Not every human being is intelligent enough to be a doctor. I should think that being a doctor and providing such a valuable service to the community would be reward enough. The social rewards of respect and admiration would seem sufficient. I should also think that becoming a doctor would be less taxing under parecon than it is currently. As far as my not understanding parecon fully I am certainly ready to concede that I may not. Michael seems to think I do not and it is basically his theory. It is not for lack of exposure to the idea however. I have read "Looking Forward", Moving Forward", "The Political Economy of Participatory Economics", and have recently started "Parecon". I certainly respect Michaels opinion that everyone should not be given equal pay regardless of work but I do disagree with it. You say absolute income equality has no moral basis. By whose definition of morality? I do not see the "moral basis" in paying a person more to be a doctor just because they were lucky enough to be born with the intellectual capacity to do so. I also see no "moral basis" for paying a person more because they were born with the energy and determination to work 80 hours a week. This is also, to a degree, the luck of the genetic draw. You say that equal pay introduces horrible implications for incentives. This assumes that people need these incentives either to work or to do their best. There is a great deal to like about parecon but I believe it has the problems I've outlined. If pay is different for different jobs of course people will compete for the jobs. The idea that having a greater income which means greater influence which means more power is a given for me. If I can buy more "things" I can buy influence over the production of those things and that translates to power. I guess we'll simply have to disagree on this as well. There is no perfect way to arrange the finances of society. Some people will believe that firefighters, because they risk their lives, NEED more financial incentive to do the job. I believe that people will gravitate towards the skills they like the best or perhaps follow in the footsteps of someone they admire. Firefighters will chose to do so because they want to do something beneficial to society and feel that this is where they can contribute the most. The same for farmers, miners, bridge builders, etc. As far as a coordinator class I can see that it is not necessary for parecon but I would fear that the temptation to create such a job would be great. For any individual who wants to get a job, again such as a firemen, there would have to be the perception by the other firemen that another position was needed and then they would seek to fill it. This means people would compete for it. If they compete then some people will naturally seek to gain an advantage. If money buys things it makes an effective bribe. I don't have a solution to the problem because there isn't one in my opinion. Some people will just be disappointed that they can't get the job they want and have to settle for something else. If they receive the same pay whether they work or not they are truly free but if not then they are being coerced into doing a job they don't want to do to avoid being homeless and hungry. Coercion is coercion whether by capitalists or workers councils.
John Thornton