> Gar Lipow writes:
>
>>>You say surgery is a more onerous task than sweeping floors? I wonder if people who choose to become surgeons really feel that way. But if it really s then it will be paid more than sweeping floors. That is if given education is not only free, but students are paid a salary for training, and sweeping floors is paid the same as surgery, and trained surgeons choose floor sweeping over surgery, than yes surgery is more onerous than floor sweeping, and compensation will be raised until sufficient people are attracted to surgical positions.
>
>
> How is this provided for, in parecons? (I should note in advance that the answer I've heard before, which boils down to 'people decide to do it,' has been pretty unsatisfactory.)
>
> Jenny Brown
>
How is what provided for? Can you clarify the question? How are wages adjusted to attract more people? In the planning process you have decided how many hours of surgical labor you wish to attract. If in a round of negotiations, you fail to attract that many you raise the hourly wage until you attract that number (or possibly lower the demand - though I suspect this is not an area with a lot of possible substitution). Actually, the more I look at your fathers "labor market" the more I like it as a means of implementing balancing of job complexes. The limits on income disparity also set a ceiling between maximum and minimum balance for job complexes. Set "tight" limits on income disparity and you are forcing very close balancing of job complexes. Allow wider disparities and you are allowing wider degrees of diparity between job complexes.