>
When I do work I want to do, that is the compensation, assuming I
otherwise have the means with which to live.
We have the means to feed, clothe, and house everybody. We make everybody work an average of 2 hours a day for socially necessary work: grow food, clean streets, pick up garbage, take care of sick people, teach, etc.
What everybody wants to do with their ample spare time is now up to them. If somebody wants to dance and somebody wants to watch, they'll find each other. If somebody wants to find a cure for cancer, they'll work on it until they do or die.
That's my plan.
[WS:] I pretty much agree with you in principle, but I have some issues with the details. First, where does the 2 hour figure come from? Assuming that military spending is nearly 100% waste - eliminating that would certainly reduce the amount of work necessary to produce. But how much, currently it is about 3% of the GDP http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=3521&type=0&sequence=0 so that would take about 1.2 hours out of the 40 hour week.
Aside the fact that none ever agrees what is 'socially necessary' - I think that we would be extremely lucky if we shaved off more than 10 hours off a 40 hour week by a combination of full employment policy and eliminating some obviously socially unnecessary tasks. That leaves us with 30, but certainly no less than 25 hours a week far form 2 hours a day (10 hours per week) that you suggest.
Another thought - work is not necessarily drudgery. A lot of people like their work and would not want to have it reduced. There is something dignifying about work - much more than about leisure and idleness.
I think that a better idea is to call for more dignifying work than for less work.
Wojtek