[lbo-talk] Parecon Discussion...

[JBrown72073 at cs.com]

>> Gar Lipow writes:
>> 
>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
>> 
>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. 

A quibble on terms, he poses the 'job market' suggestion as against the labor 
markets we know and love.


>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.

I supposed the Job Market answer to why or how you would have balanced job 
complexes in JMs is that if managers want to--as they must for economic 
survival--make the jobs on offer enjoyable and attractive, they would tend to share 
around the more attractive (or popular) parts of jobs in a pleasant mix with the 
less popular or attractive ones.  But a market, even one in which the power 
position of labor buyer and seller is reversed, seems somewhat incompatible 
with parecon as I understand it.  But you know parecon better than I, and have a 
familiarity with the JM idea--what's your take?

Jenny Brown