All work would be paid for. Volunteering to help someone out isn’t the same as working a job, and moreover the need to volunteer would be minimized before such a system could take place to begin with.
You’d get a job in the public sector, now the only sector. Various economic decisions are made at local, regional, global, etc levels by councils, planners, elected officials, etc.
Right, but I could not get a job unless it’s first been created by the government. What if the government doesn’t want to create a job that’s necessary? What about jobs that aren’t necessary, but are still desirable? If I have artistic skill, would I get an appropriate amount of work vouchers? Would skill factor in at all, or only time spent working? What is my invcentive to be efficient if skill is not a factor? If skill is a factor, who determines what “skill” is? Do we vote to make 10 furniture maker jobs and one “expert furniture maker” job with appropriate salaries?
You don’t have to answer all of those, I’m mostly just saying that this would result in a LOT of centralized control, which would have to be handled with a large amount of nuance, and that deciding these things by vote isn’t likely to work (see also, the most recent election).
I note a remark about American unemployment: “If it gets any worse, they’ll have to do something.” Who is this ultimate, uncontrollable “they”? The term betrays the class society of which the speakers are unconscious; they are waiting for some boss to act. To hear a debate: “Is America going fascist?” and think how much less passively Soviet folk would word it. “Shall we go fascist? No. Then exactly how shall we prevent it?” Soviet folk say “we” of one-sixth of the earth’s surface. Uzbek cotton-pickers, toiling under the sun of Central Asia, say: “We are conquering the Arctic; we rescued the Chelyuskinites.” Ukrainian farmers who never went up in an airplane talk of “our stratosphere records” and “the loss of our Maxim Gorky airplane” as they take up collections to build ten new ones. But even Mrs. Roosevelt asks me: “Are Russian peasants getting more reconciled to accepting direction?” I feel the hopelessness of language as I answer: “No, they are learning better to organize and direct themselves.”
I figured using “government” would result in some disconnect, but I’m not sure what else I would call a centralized authority responsible for making and carrying out societal decisions.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter if I’m part of the government. The issue remains.
Centralization is an inevitability as production becomes more complex and interconnected. Humanity will adapt and develop the necessary structures to support this, regardless of any individual’s will.
Only if there’s a viable path to transition to that state, and it’s a stable state. It could also only be a local minimum. The effect you’re describing is real, but there’s no guarantee that it will lead to your proposed societal system, and furthermore there’s no guarantee that the effect is deterministic and will necessarily lead to the same solution unless it is the only solution.
How so?
Mostly that the central planning authority gets to decide which work is meaningful enough to get paid for
All work would be paid for. Volunteering to help someone out isn’t the same as working a job, and moreover the need to volunteer would be minimized before such a system could take place to begin with.
All work would be paid for? Who decides what “work” is?
You’d get a job in the public sector, now the only sector. Various economic decisions are made at local, regional, global, etc levels by councils, planners, elected officials, etc.
Right, but I could not get a job unless it’s first been created by the government. What if the government doesn’t want to create a job that’s necessary? What about jobs that aren’t necessary, but are still desirable? If I have artistic skill, would I get an appropriate amount of work vouchers? Would skill factor in at all, or only time spent working? What is my invcentive to be efficient if skill is not a factor? If skill is a factor, who determines what “skill” is? Do we vote to make 10 furniture maker jobs and one “expert furniture maker” job with appropriate salaries?
You don’t have to answer all of those, I’m mostly just saying that this would result in a LOT of centralized control, which would have to be handled with a large amount of nuance, and that deciding these things by vote isn’t likely to work (see also, the most recent election).
“The government”. Am I thinking of Anna L. Strong on the disconnect between people and “government” in western countries.
Ah, my point is that you seem to think yourself distant from the government. You don’t take part in making decisions, some entity (“government”) does.
Edit, yes I am, This Soviet World, “ON INTERPRETING A WORLD”
I figured using “government” would result in some disconnect, but I’m not sure what else I would call a centralized authority responsible for making and carrying out societal decisions.
Anyways, it doesn’t matter if I’m part of the government. The issue remains.
Centralization is an inevitability as production becomes more complex and interconnected. Humanity will adapt and develop the necessary structures to support this, regardless of any individual’s will.
Only if there’s a viable path to transition to that state, and it’s a stable state. It could also only be a local minimum. The effect you’re describing is real, but there’s no guarantee that it will lead to your proposed societal system, and furthermore there’s no guarantee that the effect is deterministic and will necessarily lead to the same solution unless it is the only solution.