I have made an observation that i would like to be reviewed by Richard. In one comedy show, from Croatia, called "Our little clinic", there was a scene: Guy says: "I have a problem. I need three maids but only for one I have enough money." Other guy responds: "Make a competition for three maids. Reward the best one by paying it salary. Other get nothing. You get work of free maids by the price of one." Competition is main component of capitalism. The competition is dependent on reward witch means that there higher performing workers should be paid more then lower performing workers. There are two ways archive that: First: by increasing the paycheck of higher performing workers. Second: by lowering the paycheck of lower performing workers. If they look for decreasing cost of production they would be tempted to choose the second one. In that case the main character of competition is just an excuse by employer to lower the paychecks of his employees, and also an mask for doing so. Do you want competition in economics? Do you want higher quality work to be rewarded? In that kind of system the difference between higher and lower performers might be difference whether you can earn enough to survive. In other words workers are not working as much for earning money then for hope that they might earn money. There is an psychological experiment: use food to train an dove to pick an button. That is classical conditioning. Then lower the rate by witch reward, food, is given to the dove for picking the button. The dove starts picking button even more than it use to. Why would lowering the reward for doing something increase the need to that same thing? Could it be anxiety? I don`t know but that psychological effect reminds me on capitalism. Why is that?
Defenders of capitalism have always praised competition as if the way capitalism organizes competition is either (a) the only way to do so or (b) the socially "best" way to do so. But both (a) and (b) are false. Competition among work performers, for example, can be recognized and rewarded in many different ways. Raising or lowering their wages or hiring or firing them is only the capitalist way of organizing competition. An alternative economic system might, for example, disconnect wages and living standards from work performance. The worker with lower productivity would then be required to take a remedial course, get counselling, move to a different job where productivity would be higher, get more skills training etc. The more productive worker might be recognized for his/her contribution to output, social welfare, etc...or be entitled to more vacation days...or be promoted to a preferred job, etc. There is much empirical research suggesting that other ways of rewarding/punishing greater/lesser work performance have better social results than the capitalist way.
Showing 2 reactions
Sign in with