“Equal Pay for Equal Work” – what’s wrong with this principle? Part 2

Why do I think that the principle ‘everyone should receive only as much as they contribute’ is in the long term a bad one? I’m going to develop a three-part answer to that.

Firstly, attempts to apply it in practice will tend to involve a lot of power-over, a lot of judgement and control, which will tend to discriminate in favour of the powerful, and against the weak, especially women and disabled people.

Secondly, the reason why it involves this element of control is that it rests on the fact of alienation, and as society reduces alienation it will become less and less relevant.

Thirdly, the more strenuously the principle in question is applied, the more it will hold back social trends towards reducing alienation.

So that first point. To give any practical meaning to ‘rewards proportional to work’, the concepts involved must be, as an experimental scientist might say, ‘operationalised’: made capable of rigourous measurement and quantification. But it makes no sense to let people record their own level of work – if you trust people that much, why not dispense with the whole affair and make consumption goods freely available, trusting people to take appropriate amounts?

So someone else has to record and evaluate how much work people have been putting in – and such a situation is obviously an incipiently hierarchical one, where the evaluater has power over the evaluated. This is why traditionally, and even now, the definitions of ‘work’ and ‘earning’ reflect the interests of the powerful.

For example, the average advertiser does, overall, zero (or less) useful work. Whatever custom they gain for their company is mainly taking custom away from other companies, and this redistribution is acheived by bombarding people with unwanted cacophonies of images and noises. But because they win custom for one company, that company judges them to have performed useful work, and they thereby ‘earn’ money.

In particular, though, this means that when payment (and recognition as work) is not required as a necessary condition of the work being performed, it is likely that such payment and recognition will not be given. Historically this has always been a major issue for women, not just with ‘housework’ but with the more intangible ’emotional work’ of maintaining people’s egos that they tend to bear most of the burden of.

After all, most people provide a lot of ‘utility’ to others through their personal relationships: they ‘enrich’ each other’s lives. Often this involves effort – sometimes it involves doing something you might not want to do otherwise. Is that ‘work’? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t, but certainly the reason why it isn’t regarded as work under capitalism is a bad reason – that you would provide even without being paid (otherwise it’s a rather odd friendship).

A final note concerns people with various forms of disability. They often, apparently, ‘cannot work’ (though of course often they can, even in the conventional sense). But if they are not doing any work, doesn’t that suggest that having a serious incapacitating disability is, um, easy? Relaxing? (this inference sometimes hovers unavowed around discussions of benefit policies) But of course that’s ridiculous. It’s fucking hard having a serious disability – i.e. you’re doing a lot of ‘work’ all the time. The thing is, it doesn’t get counted as ‘work’, for the simple reason that it only benefits you, and you can’t pay yourself.

Now of course the fact that a principle has involved unequal power and oppression in the past doesn’t mean that it will always – it might be felt that if the task of evaluating other’s effort was to be distributed equally, so that each person was judged equally by, and equally judged, each other person, there would be no problem (this is roughly what is done, I think, in parecon).

Now I’m sceptical of that – I think there would be much less of a problem, but I also think it’s possible for a group to equally oppress all of its members, in a sort of ‘tyranny of the majority’ way. But even so, let’s ask – why does this principle necessitate control over others?

The answer is that the terms involved, ‘work’ and ‘reward’, testify to a condition of alienation. What do I mean by that?

I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that the happiest people tend to be those who love their jobs, who spend their time on an activity that they find rewarding for itself. Nor is it too controversial to say that the attempt to compensate for a horrible and unrewarding job by using the money you earn from it to buy nice objects, is not generally a hugely successful attempt. In the latter case, the person is ‘alienated from their work’ in the sense that the satisfaction they would ideally find in what they spend so much time doing is separated out, solidified into a paycheque and the commodities that can be bought with it.

To put it another way, we might observe the distinction between work and play: work is something done for the sake of something beyond it, its eventual result, while play is something do for its own sake, just because its a good thing to spend time doing. So we could then say – the best form of work is work which is simultaneously play, and conversely, if you have that, play in its ‘pure form’ becomes less important. That is, the best situation is one where work and play have merged together into a single form of activity. That’s what lets people flourish the most.

Now of course that’s always going to be an asymptotic goal, not one that can be fully realised. But we can approach nearer to it. And the major way to approach nearer to it is to give people greater and greater control of when, where, and how they work, over how society uses the products of their work, over all the general conditions of their life. And where they can’t have complete control, I think it would be beneficial to have whoever else also exercises control do so on the explicit basis of solidarity and caring about and respecting the worker, not treating them as a mere means to profit.

But wait! That sounds exactly like the goal and vision of socialism!? Society humanised, planning that centres on human needs rather than mechanical pursuit of profit, control over the conditions of one’s own work and life? It’s almost as if socialism was designed to avoid needless alienation and re-unite human beings with each other.

Anyway, the point is that whatever progress we make in that direction, it will make it harder and harder to meaningfully apply the concepts of ‘work’ and ‘reward’, because work will come to be its own reward.

The third argument is then that strenuously applying the principle ‘you only get back what you put in’ is liable to not be conducive to that eventual goal.

It is, so to speak, an ‘ascetic’ principle – it links up the wire saying ‘bad, unpleasant stuff’ to the wire saying ‘good, worthy stuff’, so as the generate a positive feeling (I worked hard, good for me!) when we do unpleasant things, and a negative feeling (I’ve just been having fun, what a bad person I am) when we do pleasant things. We can immediately see how it’s liable to be inconvenient if we actually want people to be as happy as possible.

Of course, it shows this effect most strongly in the very alienated system of capitalism, which as I have argued earlier, is built so as to systematically prevent the acheivement of meaningful abundance, by responding to any increase in social wealth by making people poorer.

But even in a money-using non-communist socialist society, the insistence on quantifying how much people had worked would still entrench a habit of demanding that others do unpleasant work in order to have access to resources, independently of whether that unpleasant work was really needed or beneficial (that is, there would be a psychological motive for such an insistence, and potentially for accompanying discipline, that would be independent of the question of whether it’s really necessary).

Thus as unpleasant work became rarer (or rather, it became possible to take pleasure and satisfaction in more forms of work for their own sake), the asceticism of ‘equal work for equal pay’ would come to be a barrier, that would need to be overcome for people to take full advantage of the opportunities for happiness.

A final note – of course it’s much easier to say all this for those who haven’t spent 30 years of their lives doing a miserable dead-end job: there’s a certain privilege that makes it easier to avoid becoming psychologically wedded to unpleasant work, which is not having to do much of it…

5 Responses to ““Equal Pay for Equal Work” – what’s wrong with this principle? Part 2”

  1. Colm O'Connor Says:

    >So someone else has to record and evaluate how much
    >work people have been putting in – and such a situation is
    >obviously an incipiently hierarchical one, where the evaluater
    >has power over the evaluated. This is why traditionally, and
    >even now, the definitions of ‘work’ and ‘earning’ reflect the
    >interests of the powerful.

    No, not at all. We have such a system – it’s called a market. Only, instead of evaluating how much work people have been putting *in*, it evaluates how much work people have been putting *out*.

    It is by its very nature non-hierarchical, and reflects the interests of its participants.

    >For example, the average advertiser does, overall, zero
    >(or less) useful work. Whatever custom they gain for their
    >company is mainly taking custom away from other
    >companies, and this redistribution is acheived by
    >bombarding people with unwanted cacophonies of images
    >and noises. But because they win custom for one
    >company, that company judges them to have performed
    >useful work, and they thereby ‘earn’ money.

    It’s interesting that you should choose this example, because, well, the market is *punishing* advertisers right now, and I couldn’t be happier with this. It is an industry that is designed to corrupt markets by altering what people see or hear about the products available to them.

    Fortunately, with the onset of the Internet, consumers have become able to control the information on markets available to them to a far greater extent, and thus the messages pounded into our heads by TV and billboard advertising have become less effective. I expect this trend to continue (barring some kind of unfortunate interference), and ad revenues should tend to zero if market forces are allowed to do their job.

    >I don’t think it’s too controversial to say that the happiest
    >people tend to be those who love their jobs, who spend
    >their time on an activity that they find rewarding for itself.

    I think that’s actually a sort of skewed middle class interpretation of the world (no offense!). There are many happy working class people for whom “a job is just a job”, and many miserable rich and middle class people who have what others would consider great jobs. I’ve known both kinds. I think this talk provides an amusing antidote to this view – http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html

    I think that the happiest people tend to be the ones who have the best relationships – with friends, families, lovers, etc.

    >After all, most people provide a lot of ‘utility’ to others
    >through their personal relationships: they ‘enrich’ each
    >other’s lives. Often this involves effort – sometimes it
    >involves doing something you might not want to do
    >otherwise. Is that ‘work’? Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t,
    >but certainly the reason why it isn’t regarded as work
    >under capitalism is a bad reason – that you would provide
    >even without being paid (otherwise it’s a rather odd
    >friendship).

    It’s not a “paid in cash” job but does it have to be? I think it’s a mutual support mechanism, where these people are providing benefits to one another (possibly even helping each other out financially), but not really providing benefits to anybody else. They’re not creating a social “good” (in the economic sense).

    >But even in a money-using non-communist socialist
    >society, the insistence on quantifying how much people
    >had worked would still entrench a habit of demanding
    >that others do unpleasant work in order to have access to
    >resources, independently of whether that unpleasant
    >work was really needed or beneficial

    Actually I think you could do away with that by ensuring that, just through the virtue of being alive, people are paid a lump sum of money that will keep them decently looked after. As a society we can well afford this.

    This would do away with the incessant commoditization of people (by ensuring that they worked because they wanted to, not because they had to), and some people would do the unpleasant work, but they would be decently rewarded for it because otherwise they wouldn’t do it.

  2. Alderson Warm-Fork Says:

    “We have such a system – it’s called a market…It is…non-hierarchical, and reflects the interests of its participants.”
    Markets only measure what gets paid for, hence they reflect the hierarchy of those with more money to spend.

    “There are many happy working class people for whom “a job is just a job”, and many miserable rich and middle class people who have what others would consider great jobs…I think that the happiest people tend to be the ones who have the best relationships – with friends, families, lovers, etc.”
    Obviously other factors are important, and can outweigh this one factor. I think it’s significant that you speak of ‘what others would consider’ great jobs. The whole point is that whether a job is rewarding is variable and unpredictable, so we should aim for people to exercise the greatest choice of how and when they work, rather than imposing the discipline of tying work to ‘reward’.

    “I think you could do away with that by ensuring that, just through the virtue of being alive, people are paid a lump sum of money that will keep them decently looked after.”
    That’s a good idea, I don’t think it would suffice on its own, and I think its introduction and level would be a site of great social struggle.

  3. Colm O'Connor Says:

    >Markets only measure what gets paid for, hence they reflect the hierarchy of those with more money to spend.

    Yes, but if you remove that hierarchy they become very egalitarian. So – remove the vast differences in wealth between the market participants (doable) and it’s great, right? 🙂

    >Obviously other factors are important, and can outweigh
    >this one factor. I think it’s significant that you speak of
    >‘what others would consider’ great jobs.

    Well, you could add to it that people in the same job consider it a great job. I know people like this – they’re surrounded by people doing the same thing as them all day who hate it but do it for the money. They, on the other hand, love it. The reward is intrinsic for them.

    >The whole point is that whether a job is rewarding is
    >variable and unpredictable, so we should aim for people
    >to exercise the greatest choice of how and when they
    >work, rather than imposing the discipline of tying work to
    >‘reward’.

    I agree to a point, but there is a trade-off to be had here. If everybody was given the *greatest* choice, then the goods and services produced by society would not reflect what people wanted to consume.

    Which is why I suggested a mechanism to accommodate both. Everybody gets a lump sum, which is enough to live on, but they have to work to ensure greater comfort.

    >That’s a good idea, I don’t think it would suffice on its
    >own, and I think its introduction and level would be a site
    >of great social struggle.

    Oh yeah, I don’t believe it would be at all popular with the powers that be. The cost of commoditized unskilled labor would skyrocket.

  4. Alderson Warm-Fork Says:

    “if you remove that hierarchy they become very egalitarian”
    Very big ‘if’.

    “there is a trade-off to be had here.”
    There’s a trade-off, but it should be a social goal to improve the terms of the trade-off, i.e. make even the work that needs doing as pleasant as possible, in various ways.

  5. For Revolutionary Moderation: How to Make Socialism Appealing to the Public « Directionless Bones Says:

    […] could be fairer? Marx says, and I agree, that this is not yet the ideal economic system – full communism, which abandons the […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: