Hacker News Reader

Comment by rpiguy | Hacker News Reader

The most remarkable idea they had was that the jobs no one wanted to do should be compensated the most:

"Jobs were compensated at three levels, with exhausting or repugnant jobs earning a premium and light and attractive jobs being docked a penalty"

Imagine a world where actors, and white collar workers made less than people who dug ditches and cleaned up refuse.

View on HN

Actually it is the case that attractive, passion positions like actor, musician, and the like are compensated poorly on average, especially when they are not protected by unions. That's because of the surplus of people wanting to do the dream job.

Digging ditches and garbage collection are compensated poorly because of the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet.

That is actually a really fair point, I was only considering the actors and musicians who have "made it."

The second point, the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet - this is shrinking as more people expect to be able to survive without working, but also a fair point.

Many communes have failed over the issue of who will do the dishes. This one solved the issue by using money (is it really a commune?) and paying more for repugnant jobs.

That overly simplistic analogy breaks down when you realise that capability is not evenly distributed.

The communes do not match work to ability based on what I read. The distribution of ability wasn't a factor in who did what job and who got paid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com