Under capitalism, a lot of the time, highly dangerous jobs are also highly paid. Kind of a balance that the individual decides to engage with. Same idea behind getting an advanced degree in STEM or law. I think of my job by example, I’m a power plant operator at a large combined cycle plant. No fucking shot I’d be doing this if the pay wasn’t good. I’m around explosive and deadly hot shit all day.
In The Dispossed by Ursula Le Guin everyone takes turns at the unfavourable jobs. A character asks whether that’s inefficient having to constantly train people. Well yes, is the answer, but what are you going to do? Force people to do work that kills them?
Good book. Highly recommend
Your personal motivations don’t represent any society, at large.
Your premise is that people only choose jobs because of the salary? I reject that premise. All information I’m aware of tells us that most people choose jobs because of aptitude, interest, skills and prestige, not because of financial concerns (given that all jobs compensate equally).
It should also be noted that communism doesn’t mean uniform pay. You need to go back to the drawing board and rephrase your question.
Also it’s absurd to suggest that capitalism rewards dangerous jobs more, when it clearly doesn’t. Your example is terrible because power generation is heavily regulated and very safe. The most dangerous jobs are extraction or harvesting jobs, and they can be high paid…but are not well paid in the most dangerous circumstances.
I don’t think communism means “everyone gets paid the same regardless of work”.
Also capitalism doesn’t mean that people get paid more or less depending on type of work.
Capitalist means that means of productions are privately owned by capital. While in communism means of production are owned by work.
At least that’s the theory.
I see this definition of communism more lately, but the dictionary definition of communism absolutely does not rewards based on work. It rewards based on need. To the point where money can be abolished altogether. What you describe sounds like socialism, where the distribution of goods is based on contribution, rather than need.
I feel like a lot of discussions surrounding communism have this issue, where people do not have the definition of communism aligned properly. Where did you learn your definition of communism? And where can one read about it? What I have been taught aligns very well with Wikipedia.
Alright, so, could you adress my question though? I know that sounds cunty, but, I’m not sure how else to respond.
They did answer your question. Same way in a “capitalist” society: those who take more responsibility or risk earn more benefit. More/better food, more rank, more commission, more salary, better housing, better medical care, etc.
There are plenty of examples of this happening and also not happening under both capitalism and communism. Is there a trend? That’s a very long debate.
So, a cast system…
It’s spelled “caste,” and castes are (critically) hereditary. Leaving a caste you were born into is virtually impossible.
People who do more/harder work can get compensated an appropriate amount. Note that this runs at odds to the current system where a CEO makes 1000x their employees salary despite not working 1000x as hard.
Most people who specialize do it just for the love of the game.
They are apathetic wether people pay them or not.
I went to school for four years, obtained 7 separate licenses and accrued a decade of experience. I am absolutely not apathetic as to whether or not I get paid.
Granted, but you are not everyone.
Max Planck definitely was not motivated by greed.
I don’t think developing a skill and wanting to be compensated for it is greed. Its just an equitable exchange of goods/services.
Are you suggesting your skill is more valuable than others? If so by which standard? What determines how valuable a skill is?. Or do you think other people don’t develop their skills as well?
I don’t know what you do for a living, but realistically unless you are a farmer your job is not actually essential. People can survive decades without doctors, can police themselves, etc, granted it would be a worse life than currently, but it’s survivable (and I don’t think you’re in either of these positions either, if I were to bet I would say you work in something that’s completely irrelevant to society but that earns money to some rich guy). However everyone needs to eat, so why do you think your skill is more important than the skill of the people actually keeping you alive?.
In my post I list my job. I am a power plant operator. I hold an engineering degree and many specific licenses. A big part of why I make the money I do is because in my job, I am required to run at the danger, secure it and get things working again. If i didn’t people would die, indirectly in the hospital and directly because catastrophic failure and inability to contain it means literal explosions. I run at the thing shooting death out and make it stop, without a laps in electric feed. Look into how dangerous steam is, majority of the steam I work with is 1800 PSI. We keep the lights on at a major hospital and several hundred homes. If the rest of the grid collapsed, we can black start, run as an island and provide a safe haven to thousands. I think the risk I assume, expertise I have and sacrifices I make mean I should earn more than someone who stocks shelves at the grocery store. Ironically, I am also technically a farmer too, but I make almost no money doing that because I have a small operation. I produce and sell honey, lamb meat, eggs, chicken meat and dried beans.
Hospitals and other critical locations have generators, so while blackouts are an inconvenience they rarely cause deaths. They might not be common where you live in part thanks to you, but other parts of the world have blackouts and people are fine. I’m not saying your job is not dangerous or important, but you might be overestimating your importance.
Regardless your job is something that would be considered “essential” on a broader scope, therefore would be highly compensated in any form of communism. During a transitional period it would be highly paid, and if ever money gets abolished it would be recompensated in other ways. On the other hand in capitalism your job is not that highly recompensated, because capitalism pays more for what makes more money regardless of how useful or dangerous it is. For example a quick search tells me that the median salary in the US for your position is 88k, whereas the median salary for a programmer is 133k, and I assure you my job is less dangerous and essential than yours.
That being said, dangerous or undesirable jobs should be automated away, if you think no one would want to be a power plant operator if they could do whatever they want to, then the proper solution is to get rid of the job entirely. No one should be forced to do something they don’t like just so they can pay their bills, we have enough technology to automate at least the dangerous parts of the job, it’s just that under capitalism that money it’s better spent elsewhere because your life is worth approximately 88k per year.
Thats a hilarious way to tell me you have no idea what you’re talking about. Regarding my position, apparently yours or the topic at hand. Sorry I didn’t reply sooner I just went through notifications I’ve been sitting on for months. Hospitals and emergency locations have backup generators, correct. Now tell me how they work and WHO operates and maintains them 24/7… Tell me how Cuba is doing with consistant rolling blackouts, everyone’s fine, right? Where did you get the median 88k number for power plant engineer and where did you get the median salary for programmers being 130k? I promise the former is way low and the latter is way high. I can provide sources if you want. You act like there is a magic wand that can just remove tens/hundreds of millions of jobs because they aren’t people dream jobs. Thats the only way communism could work? It would require automation to a unbelievable degree? By what medium would that automation even be achievable? I also can’t possibly imagine a job like mine being automated before a job like yours.
For some people they choose these fields out of a sense of duty to the community but this is rare and not likely to fill the required productive capacity. The end goal should be automating these fields and a communist society run by workers would inherently work towards this goal. However in the mean time incentives like an early retirement and reduced working hours would likely boost numbers significantly. This is a sacrifice though as it means more people are required to do the job and these workers stop contributing to society at an earlier age, depending on the material conditions and specific stage of development this could be much harder to accomplish in which case that sense of duty would have to be reinforced by culture. The socialist transition is no paradise, it requires dangerous work and personal sacrifice to create a better world. There are likely other incentives that could be implemented more easily but these are the first two I thought of.
Not to pry but what do you consider “good pay” for those conditions?
Around 55 an hour on average in my field but lots of fluctuation based on location. Im closer to 70, before all the built in OT in my schedule.
Why do people do things like rock climbing and other activities that have a high risk of injury or death when mistakes are made without being paid? Some people find dangerous stuff to be more enjoyable than less dangerous stuff.
Most dangerous jobs under capitalism are NOT well paid. People will do dangerous jobs for many reasons, but pay is rarely one of them.
Im speaking from my anecdotal experience of working a dangerous job. I do it 1. Because I genuinely find it interesting 2. Because it pays better than most jobs. If the pay part wasn’t there I’d find something equally interesting in engineering that paid well.
Your job isn’t dangerous. It’s potentially dangerous…but well-regulated and rated as very safe by employment standards.
Resource extraction jobs, for example, are statistically the least safe and tend to not pay well.
3 times higher than national average for fatalities… based on the bureau of labor statistics, but sure, tell me again I have a safe job. You recognize not being the MOST dangerous doesnt make it not dangerous right?
Your job remains statistically safe. Calling it “dangerous” isn’t accurate.
Your argument is like saying flying is more dangerous than other travel because you die more often when there’s an accident.
You’re trolling or genuinely a very stupid person.
My statements are accurate and please miss me with the ad hominem attacks…they’re not a substitute for an argument.
In the US around 30 people a year die from chainsaws. Because that number is small compared to other hazards, chainsaws are safe and not dangerous. This is your argument, do you see that, at all?
