differential wage payments in same jobs under socialism

I support it but if you say the normal wage is 100
the range should be limited to 70~130

FOr the same job, I would say maybe a 25-35% differential based on experience. Whatever the workers of that company/location democratically decide.

Equal pay for equal work is a basic socialist demand.

I'd understand that specialist workers (doctors, engineers, mechanics, heavy machinery operators, etc.) earned 25-35% more than the average semi-skilled worker, but it's essential that workers doing the same job earn the same wage per hour (adjusted for local cost of living if there's reason to).

Limited differential wage payments in same jobs is what you already have in countries where social-democracy is strongly rooted and the Gini Index is low, like the Scandinavia Countries for instance. I defend equal pay for equal work with only a bonus differential in productivity. High productive workers should be compensated.

Equality of pay, even for the same profession, is absurd. The teacher who teaches forty students clearly deserves more than the teacher who teaches ten. Examples like this abound and setting up a wage-by-profession system is just going to to make people do as little as possible.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Equality of pay, even for the same profession, is absurd. The teacher who teaches forty students clearly deserves more than the teacher who teaches ten. Examples like this abound and setting up a wage-by-profession system is just going to to make people do as little as possible.

I totally agree with KlassWar on this one, equal pay for equal work is a basic socialist demand. The liberals, conservatives and other kind of capitalists have the same thought as you do: absurd. But it's not. A teacher who teaches ten students can be much more hard worker, efficiently and productive than the one who teaches 40. So, what should be the main differential in order to be fair? Productivity as i said previously.

What is one of the main causes for social inequalities today? Salary. How can you build socialism upon one of the main causes ? If you say that a limited differential is acceptable under socialism then we should consider the Scandinavia social-democrat model socialist because like i said they have that system and the Gini coefficient is low. If they have it what the socialists would do differently then?

Differentials wage payments have a individualistic component that socialism must fight if we want to move towards communism. Socialism is about working in a team, not individually. Socialism = Collective, Liberalism = Individual.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

wage-by-profession system is just going to to make people do as little as possible

That is why you should compensate the productive workers. Some academics say that one of the reasons why SU stagnated in the 70's and 80's was the considerably decreasing of the productivity of the workers since they hadn't any relevant incentives and the job was secure because there was always full employment in the country. This contrasts with the 30's when the Stakhanovite movement was created and the workers were highly praised as heros for their productivity, being rewarded with prizes, bonus and medals for their efforts, dedication and commitment to the work. I know that some figures were probably exaggerated like the Stakhanov record but nevertheless it was successful as far as motivating the workers is concerned: during the first 5-year plan (1929–1932) industrial labor productivity increased 41%. During the second 5-year plan (1933–1937) it increased 82%. This movement was dropped during the de-stalinization period by Kruschev.

How can "to each according to his need" possibly exist, if wages are exactly equal?

@prax: What other motivation could one have under such a system? Saying you make a particular wage for a particular job no matter how much effort you put in is as alienating as current production, if not more so. Wages should always reflect the effort put in, that they don't is a big part of why capitalism is bullshit.

I'll get to JAM's post now and will edit this one with my response to him.

runequester wrote:

How can "to each according to his need" possibly exist, if wages are exactly equal?

You are talking about a stage where there is no wage system.

Same work, same wage, no matter how efficient they are. When I work, even in our capitalist society, I try to do my best and I don't have to be paid for that. People involved and motivated will climb the ladder faster anyway, they will be given new job opportunities. So there is no problem at all.

Yeah let's not reward hard work. If they want something better they'll just get another job. Also working your hardest in capitalism is stupid. Yo shouldn't screw over your comrades of course but giving your boss more profit for no gain is a fool's choice.

JAM wrote:

I totally agree with KlassWar on this one, equal pay for equal work is a basic socialist demand.

That may be a demand that idealist socialists might make but Marx consistently came out against the idiocy of wage leveling. And rightly so as it can only lead to low production as it deincentivizes hard work.

JAM wrote:

The liberals, conservatives and other kind of capitalists have the same thought as you do: absurd. But it's not. A teacher who teaches ten students can be much more hard worker, efficiently and productive than the one who teaches 40. So, what should be the main differential in order to be fair? Productivity as i said previously.

No you just don't understand my example. My example was between a teacher who taught fourty people versus one who only taught ten. Understand that by teach I mean taught, so clearly he who teaches more earns more. But even your example proves that should be the case.

JAM wrote:

What is one of the main causes for social inequalities today? Salary.

Wrong. It's control of Productive Property. Divisions on wage are illusory like race or sex. Workers have much more in common with the high-payed lawyer than with the struggling bourgeoisie.

JAM wrote:

How can you build socialism upon one of the main causes ? If you say that a limited differential is acceptable under socialism then we should consider the Scandinavia social-democrat model socialist because like i said they have that system and the Gini coefficient is low. If they have it what the socialists would do differently then?

Not continue to give the rewards from exploitation to the bourgeoisie for one. In socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. Exploitation does not fall with our revolution but we set up its death and give our children the axe to finally severe its neck.

JAM wrote:

Differentials wage payments have a individualistic component that socialism must fight if we want to move towards communism. Socialism is about working in a team, not individually. Socialism = Collective, Liberalism = Individual.

Wrong again. Marxism is about true individualism, humans not alienated from their own existence, not the vulgar individualism of liberalism. We don't aim to turn humanity into a hive of obedient slaves but a co-working system of fully realized individuals. Liberalism is incapable of providing for individualism as working class people have to work ourselves to death to provide Individualism for the wealthy.

JAM wrote:

That is why you should compensate the productive workers.

Yeah with higher wages and raises.

JAM wrote:

Some academics say that one of the reasons why SU stagnated in the 70's and 80's was the considerably decreasing of the productivity of the workers since they hadn't any relevant incentives and the job was secure because there was always full employment in the country. This contrasts with the 30's when the Stakhanovite movement was created and the workers were highly praised as heros for their productivity, being rewarded with prizes, bonus and medals for their efforts, dedication and commitment to the work. I know that some figures were probably exaggerated like the Stakhanov record but nevertheless it was successful as far as motivating the workers is concerned: during the first 5-year plan (1929–1932) industrial labor productivity increased 41%. During the second 5-year plan (1933–1937) it increased 82%. This movement was dropped during the de-stalinization period by Kruschev.

So I don't see how you disagree with me. You just seem hung up on my phrases like "wage".

Quote:

Yeah let's not reward hard work. If they want something better they'll just get another job. Also working your hardest in capitalism is stupid. Yo shouldn't screw over your comrades of course but giving your boss more profit for no gain is a fool's choice.

Oh I received much profits. I was respected by my superiors, and I could obtain better job opportunities thanks to that, even though it was only temporary work. Moreover I accepted the job, so I had to fulfill my part of the contract. Many other workers were working very bad because they knew they would not come back again. The socialist economy works the same way. Competition is very bad because it demotivate workers. There is a difference between competition and emulation. This is exactly like in the army. You know, during the war, most of the victories in air battles were obtained by a very few number of pilots, even though they were all paid the same.

Equality is very good, because if you are not good at work, people will say: "look, he is a slacker, and he is paid as much as we are". So you will have to work if you want to be respected. In a stupid capitalist society, inequalities justify capitalist inefficiency.

OP-Bagration wrote:

Oh I received much profits. I was respected by my superiors, and I could obtain better job opportunities thanks to that, even though it was only temporary work. Moreover I accepted the job, so I had to fulfill my part of the contract.

Sorry I guess I'm just too used seeing people working their fingers to the bone for a tiny raise if that. Plus I've never given a shit if my boss, I just hate them and disregard them accordingly. Why should I want their respect, those whose aim is to steal the value of my labor and then fire me at a whim? I make myself indispensable but not for my boss, rather in spite of them.

Also accepting a job just means you do the job, one thing more is unacceptable without compensation. It's not fair to ask someone to do more than you originally arranged for what you originally arranged. This type of dishonesty and theft is common in capitalism it shouldn't extend into socialism.

OP-Bagration wrote:

Many other workers were working very bad because they knew they would not come back again. The socialist economy works the same way. Competition is very bad because it demotivate workers. There is a difference between competition and emulation. This is exactly like in the army. You know, during the war, most of the victories in air battles were obtained by a very few number of pilots, even though they were all paid the same.

How does competition demotivate workers? And besides I'm not talking about competition I'm talking about fully rewarding thorough Proletarians. It is a cruelty to not pay the best garbage man better than the worst.

OP-Bagration wrote:

Equality is very good, because if you are not good at work, people will say: "look, he is a slacker, and he is paid as much as we are". So you will have to work if you want to be respected. In a stupid capitalist society, inequalities justify capitalist inefficiency.

It's very easy to be hated by your coworkers and not care. You can go home and reap the rewards for your selfishness in the comfort of those who do not have to work with you. While at the end of the day all you've really done is frustrated the hard worker.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yeah let's not reward hard work. If they want something better they'll just get another job.

Also working your hardest in capitalism is stupid. Yo shouldn't screw over your comrades of course but giving your boss more profit for no gain is a fool's choice.

Did you even red my post?

Quote:

A teacher who teaches ten students can be much more hard worker, efficiently and productive than the one who teaches 40. So, what should be the main differential in order to be fair? Productivity as i said previously

Dagoth Ur wrote:

That may be a demand that idealist socialists might make but Marx consistently came out against the idiocy of wage leveling. And rightly so as it can only lead to low production as it deincentivizes hard work.

Once again, did you red my post? I talked about incentives almost all the time and even gave the USSR example. I did not find a single statement by Marx about the wage-leveling. In the 20's a wage-levelling system was implemented in USSR. So can you see Lenin was favorable to the wage-leveling system. I doubt that Lenin would contradict Marx on this one but if you have something to prove the contrary you can show to me.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

No you just don't understand my example. My example was between a teacher who taught fourty people versus one who only taught ten. Understand that by teach I mean taught, so clearly he who teaches more earns more. But even your example proves that should be the case.

I understood you perfectly. Why the teacher who taught 40 people should receive more than the teacher who taught 10?You are assuming that a teacher who taught 40 people has much more work than one who taught 10. Wrong. 10 people can give you much more work than 40 people. Indeed, my personal experience says that taught 40 people is much more easier than 10 people. If you ever went to university you should know what i am talking about. You can have a lazy teacher giving lessons to 40 people doing a terrible job and a hard work teacher teaching 10 people with much more effort and quality. The level of knowledge of these 10 people will be much higher than those 40 people. Quantity doesn't mean quality.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Wrong. It's control of Productive Property. Divisions on wage are illusory like race or sex. Workers have much more in common with the high-payed lawyer than with the struggling bourgeoisie.

You call it illusory? That is pretty insensitive and has nothing to do with socialism. Everybody knows that differential salary is one of the causes of social inequalities just like race and sex as you said. Do you think the blacks are not discriminated? Women? Are you serious? Nevertheless you're example of the lawyer is absurd since i don't know how can a rich lawyer have more in common with workers than a owner of a small company with four employees. You are completely adulterating the conception of class and that is certainly anti-marxism.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Not continue to give the rewards from exploitation to the bourgeoisie for one. In socialism surplus value is still taken but reinvested in the People's State. Exploitation does not fall with our revolution but we set up its death and give our children the axe to finally severe its neck.

But how can you build socialism in a unequal society? What you're advocating is that we should continue to have different classes but now with the same name for all of them. When people look at socialism they want more social fairness, not the continuation of the social inequalities now under the banner of socialism. The People's State must guarantee that social fairness, not perpetuating the divergences.

JAM wrote:

Differentials wage payments have a individualistic component that socialism must fight if we want to move towards communism. Socialism is about working in a team, not individually. Socialism = Collective, Liberalism = Individual.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Wrong again. Marxism is about true individualism, humans not alienated from their own existence, not the vulgar individualism of liberalism. We don't aim to turn humanity into a hive of obedient slaves but a co-working system of fully realized individuals. Liberalism is incapable of providing for individualism as working class people have to work ourselves to death to provide Individualism for the wealthy.

I'm not wrong. Your argumentation seems to be a little bit ingenious. How can you have individualism in a socialist or communist society where the exploitation and private property are abolished? People don't need to work as a team to achieve their goals? How common property is not collective? Marxism is about the liberation of the man from the exploitation which is only achieved by collective means. You said yourself "co-working system". I think you got a little bit confused with my argumentation. You didn't understand it.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

Yeah with higher wages and raises.

No, with bonus, prizes and other incentives but the base must remain the same. A worker whose productivity is low in one month must have the same chance as the worker who got a high productivity in the same month.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

So I don't see how you disagree with me. You just seem hung up on my phrases like "wage".

I gave you the soviet case as an example of incentive. I don't know if you red my posts correctly but i always defended rewards to the ones whose productivity is higher.

JAM wrote:

[Limited differential wage payments in same jobs is what you already have in countries where social-democracy is strongly rooted and the Gini Index is low, like the Scandinavia Countries for instance. I defend equal pay for equal work with only a bonus differential in productivity. High productive workers should be compensated.

Social Democrat countries has Minimum Wage System like most of the capitalist countries
but not limited differential wage payments. I 've heard that some socialist countries had Limited differential wage payments
even the soviet union during the 1930s and late 60s(Kosyigin reform) held a limited differential wage.

moonjosh wrote:

Social Democrat countries has Minimum Wage System like most of the capitalist countries
but not limited differential wage payments. I 've heard that some socialist countries had Limited differential wage payments
even the soviet union during the 1930s and late 60s(Kosyigin reform) held a limited differential wage.

No, they have limited differential wage payments, there is why the Gini Index in those countries is so low.

The Scandinavia countries don't have the minimum wage system.

In scandinavia, wage levels are negotiated by unions (basically). There's no legal minimum wage that I know of.

moonjosh wrote:

Social Democrat countries has Minimum Wage System

True but incomplete, Soc-Dem countries have got more than that: Social Democrat countries have legally protected collective bargaining: Agreements between employers and labor's representatives are binding. If the minimum wage is 700€/Month but the union gets a minimum wage of 1200€ in the CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) employers in the covered sector can't hire workers for under €1200/Month, so that's effective minimum wage in all covered shops .

Occassionally, in some soc-dem countries where unions are particularly strong, some unions have managed to get through CBAs that did introduce limited wage differentials (the highest paid worker in the company can't get paid more than X times the lowest paid/average worker's salary)... But it's quite rare, 'cause wage differentials are completely outta control and employers couldn't sign even if they wanted to: senior executives are often paid 20-50X the average worker's salary. Signing would mean either a massive raise for all workers or a mass wage drop for the executives (which would resign in droves).

The only CBAs of that type I remember are on some Argentinian industrial cooperatives during the past decade.

JAM wrote:

No, they have limited differential wage payments, there is why the Gini Index in those countries is so low.

The Scandinavia countries don't have the minimum wage system.

Scandinavian countries has a minimum wage but the wage is decided by negotiations.
and they don't have limited differential wage payments at all
plus soviet union in the 30s had a unlimited wage payments
For a example Stakhanovists wage was about 14 times more than normal workers.