My understanding is that "To each according to their needs" is the Marxist perspective. No need to determine value.

The question of education ignores that the doctors also did large amounts of labor as students, not just their teachers.

So that provides the solution . . . .pay students for the time they spend working on their future productivity through education.

For 2 - the average across an industry is fine. In that case, the attempted fraudster has the same issue as criminals questioned separately . . . Their stories won't add up.

For 3 - we don't currently see hospital janitors paid a premium.

4 is just the same as 2.

It's not really the premise. Kind of the opposite.

The name was In Time so you were damn close.

Its a fun movie if you don't take it too seriously

It was okay.

A friend of mine wrote a short scifi story where people living on a space station were paid in "keeptime" which you used for everything, including paying for lofe support. Basically the epstein class's dream there: captive population with nowhere to escape to, completely dependent on you even for air.

In Time. I love that movie.

That's confusing division of labor with pricing

In Marx's labor theory of value, which OP's post is pulling from, the human made tools one uses to labor, to make a thing, is called Embodied Labor.

We tend to, through a process called Commodity fetishism, look at object purely in terms of its monetary value, rather than the labor processes that it took to make. That labor process, in the case of your house, is more than just the construction workers who put it together, they're tied, by the labor process, to the people in the screw and nail factory, to people who grew the trees, chopped them down, processed the lumber. They're tied to the people who drove the trucks and boats and trains which got the materials to the construction site.

So the workers who made the house might have done 8 hours worth of socially necessary labor to take the materials they had and turn them into a house. But those materials represent the embodied labor of all the people who labored before them to add successively more and more value to the base raw materials.

Hard to pack an entire national economic plan into a pithy two paragraph hypothetical.

But the baseline - all labor has the value of the hours allocated to it - forces a model that values human capacity for productive surplus over value of capital accumulation.

That's a strong premise for whatever you want to build on top of it.

Are they working all through the night? One man working 40 hours a week with no sickness but including 5 weeks holidays per year works 1880 hours. A year of hours is 8760.

Skill issue. They build houses out of concrete here in China in like a month, in Japan they use wood and do the same, tho they lose all value after 30 years.

I mean, maybe. But a year seems like a lot for a full team, so either that team is not working as much and as consistently as you'd think OR that house is worth a lot more than a year.

No, Rand pretended there wasn't coercion in capitalism. There is. People work jobs they don't want.

The problem is they work then too much, because the surplus goes to capitalists.

I think some kind of system where you bank those hours and they multiply your rate when you actually work, paying back the hours you studied after you've proven you can succeed.

"I as a CEO provide job opportunities and "hours" to spend for TEN THOUSAND people. Obviously my time should be considered worth more than a doctor who does only one person's hours"

There's many reasons why one would claim that their job is more important, but essentially there's 2 kinds of jobs: those that are valuable to the society, and those that are not. Plumber's job is just as important as doctor's

different jobs have different values

No, fuck that line of thinking. We live in an interconnected world where every worker does something useful for society, and they all have a right to a happy, fulfilling life.

Ah yes, absolutely no other things go into making a car—the workers just shit the metal out

Why would it be only 35 hours though. It starts with people mining the raw resources, producing the raw parts, and includes transport on every step of the way. I estimate it's at least 1000s of hours. 35 maybe is enough to account for assembly alone.

Everyone should be paid the same, no matter the field they work in. Doctors and engineers require huge skills and long careers, but they wouldn't be there if nobody took care of their pipes, waste water, trash, cleaned the streets, built their house or served them fast food.

Education should be free, same as housing, so it shouldn't be a problem to spend more time studying.

Capitalism told you nobody would bother getting a more "skilled" job, but that's just not true. When people are allowed to freely choose what to learn and work in, without needing to think about money, they will follow their vocations and interests. The only difference will be that more people will be satisfied with their jobs, and happy to work them.

Dude you need to chill. I read it as metaphor and hipérbole. Obviously it's not all the same but justifying the 10, 000 years or work no matter what you do is the key message here.

Money has a network effect (especially physical cash) so it needs to have a compelling advantage to unseat whatever is dominant in the area. Like Glover said in the article, every local currency needs at least one dedicated evangelist.

I'm surprised modernizing it to digital didn't help, since that reduces the impact of the network effect. In 2019 you could already do "atomic transactions" between cryptocurrencies without having to trust an exchange.

This is a very simplified version of Marx's Labor theory of Value. If you want a more "grown up" version, there are three entire volumes of Capital for you to read.

Enjoy

Look, I know it's silly but we need some of this naive optimism. We already have enough 300IQ moustache twirlers, we're full.

They're trying to explain complex ideas to people like you.

Guess they have to keep up with their day job of posting 10-20 posts a day, lots of it is going to be brimstone

Working on an oil rig is a lot more dangerous than most white collar jobs. The time cost would have to account for the expected years of your life that you lose from taking on that job.

Isn't that backwards? You would get more sanitation workers if they were paid the same as white collar

Lots of white collar jobs just straight up shouldn't exist. Not all, but a lot of them.

But also hours should be for luxury items and basic necessities should be free for everyone.

The hour system on its own just pushes the issues with capitalism one step back.

Sanitation is definitely one of those jobs that don't get valued and paid enough.

stumbles upon socially necessary labor power…

Healthcare’s goal should not be to be profitable. The government should subsidize both the education and pay of medical staff for the wellbeing of their people.

It doesn't really matter for this point.

The point is that nobody earns ten million hours (1,140 constant years) of work ($1b @ $100/hr).

You can have a lot of leeway with ratios and that'll still never be true.

I've played around with this idea, and the best solution I came up with was amortizing hours spent in training over the course of a career. If you spend 20,000 hours in med school, and you have a projected career of (40 years × 2,000 hours per year) 80,000 hours, one hour of your labor would have a value of 1.25 "unskilled" hours.

Your training increases the value of your labor power (the cost of reproducing your labor and what the value of wages tend towards) making your hourly wage larger. The meme is good agitprop but it isn't real marxian analysis.

You did a whoopsy by picking health care as your example, but you’re spot-on. Our ability to develop new skills, learn from experience, and invent new ways of doing things is perhaps the distinguishing feature of human labor over mechanical processes.

This is a decent meme for the world of 15 years ago, but as algorithmic (and now AI) centric labor has taken over and turned us into “chickenized reverse centaurs” (as Cory Doctorow says), I think it accidentally makes the same case that the tech lords are making.

That is: output is output. Artists are valuable for the art they produce, not for being an embodied being in our shared space that specializes in looking at things from new angles. Coders are valuable for the finished software they produce, not for understanding the system in motion. Etc.

Edit: There’s a Marx quote I like…

A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality.

I strongly disagree (given this system is fleshed out a lot more, obviously). This is the bullshit they sell us at the top of corrupt systems.

I work slowly sometimes because I don't earn a fair wage. Fifteen years ago, I earned a fair wage and I put extra time in that I didn't need to. Today, I do the opposite. This is because my employer today is untrusting, abusive, and exploitative.

Op's post is a very simplified rendering of Marx's Labor Theory Of Value. Marx says that the value of a commodity isn't just determined by the labor time it took to make, but rather the socially necessary labor time.

In short, the average amount of time that a society uses to make a given commodity. So of you, as an individual, were really slow at the widget factory, your widgets don't get more expensive just because it took you longer. You just get fired for being lazy.

Instead, value is determined by this Socially Necessary average, and that average is augmented by technological advancements in production. By extension, Marx says, those technological advancements in turn influence the way production, and therefore society itself, is organized;

slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity.

The reason people lack access to the necessities of life is because they labor for, say, 8 hours a day, and only recieve a fraction of the value they produce by their labor, in wages. The solution isn't necessarily to give those workers all the money, though pay raises are often a good thing, but to take the surplus value that would have previously been hoarded by a capitalist, and have its use be put towards the betterment of society, and be democratically decided upon in some way.

Maybe, but I would probably be excited to pick up other professions. I feel like I could do drywalling as a side hustle.

Good, maybe we wouldn't be such a bunch of wastrels if we weren't running around because a website might go down or meeting might be delayed if we don't rush

That's what I was thinking of while reading the post, too.

The movie gets panned a lot, but I liked it.

Me too

Agreed. A physician who spent a decade earning the ability to do a lifesaving surgery that might take two hours has a different value than someone working two hours at a retail cash register.

The low-value jobs you're talking about are essential to the basic functioning of society. That is your food, water, and sanitation. If they stopped doing those jobs, you would die within days or weeks. What you are saying, essentially, is that you think those jobs should be done but that the people who do them should be poor.

In November, Business Insider estimated the average Walmart worker's yearly salary at a paltry $29,469. The outlet observed that McMillon's compensation as Walmart CEO was more than triple the 295-to-1 ratio in 2014.

"CEO Doug McMillon was the second-highest-paid CEO in this list with a compensation package worth $27.4 million — a pay ratio of 930:1," Business Insider said. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich (@RBReich) has frequently highlighted the problem on social media.

So let's say the average Walmart worker works 2,000 hours and earns 2,000 hours. Let's say the CEO worked 6,000 hours (working every waking hour of every day of the year, minus 7 hours for sleep). By this ratio, the CEO earned 1,860,000 hours. To put that in perspective, the average worker "earned" 83 days, while the CEO "earned" 212 years.

Can you explain what exactly the CEO did that made his work hours THAT MUCH more valuable than the average worker? Link to source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/walmart-ceo-sparks-backlash-report-024000016.html

Unskilled labor isnt a real real thing. It was created to devalue blue collar workers. A construction worker is seen as unskilled but if you were to try and build a home next to a construction worker you'd realize how much skill they have at the matter.