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.

  • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    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

    • nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      A lot of dangerous jobs require significant training and are safer when done or supervised by people with years of experience.

      I saw this a lot in corporate middle management treating software developers as generic assets who could just be shuffled between teams as necessary without acknowledging people have different experiences with different technologies and different competencies.

  • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Why are some people veterinarians? Specialized and low paying for the amount of education needed and debt incurred.

    Why are some people firefighters? Dangerous and not particularly high paying.

  • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    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.

    • octobob@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree with your sentiment but it’s absurd to tell OP that his job is “very safe”. Until you’ve seen what heavy industry is really like, I’d refrain from commenting on it. I’m an industrial electrician and I’ve worked in steel mills, foundries, factories, power plants, etc.

      It can truly be the wild west out there. Operators have a tough job in often sketchy situations, heavy machinery, around nasty chemicals and fumes and just the dirtiest grime. Mills fucking suck for example. We’ve been working on the Oswego plant in upstate New York which is the largest supplier of aluminum for Ford. It burned down, twice. There was a giant ass hole in the roof from the fire and like 12 feet of water in the basement from all the fire departments spraying where all the electrical equipment is. Then when they were fixing shit, another fire happened from someone welding on the roof.

      This is an extreme example, but it is insane how the world works sometimes. I was 22 working on a solar power plant out west and the maintenance guys told me everything was locked out and off. I do a dead check and find 1000v on the busbar from a row of solar panels on some shit I was just about to work on. “Oh yeah that disconnect box is broke, we don’t shut that one off” was the response.

      Safety and regulation can only get you so far unfortunately. Safety is always #1 all these places say but you really gotta be on and alert and conscious of what’s going on around you at all times. Injuries can happen in an instant

      • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        I think there’s a difference between a job being dangerous and a job having statistically significant dangerous outcomes. What you seem to be describing is a job with many dangers, but you don’t provide data on if the job actually produces outcomes caused by a dangerous environment more than most jobs. Something like this provides evidence on what jobs are statistically dangerous in the US at least: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/civilian-occupations-with-high-fatal-work-injury-rates.htm

        • PolarKraken@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          When you’ve visited enough industrial plants and seen the wildly ranging safety standards and practices, the aggregated statistics just aren’t very interesting.

          I’ve been to a plant, a Superfund site that supplies a material strategically necessary to the US, and which will thus never be closed - that released clouds of chlorine gas daily. Staff at the neighboring plant have to literally watch for yellow clouds and fuckin run when they see them.

          Paper mills? Even just their “man lifts” (thankfully going the way of the dinosaur), something like a vertical conveyor belt where you stand on this narrow pad to rapidly ascend floors - hilariously dangerous.

          Any kind of metal extraction and processing with strong acids, incidents do happen. Worst I personally observed (far from the worst I’ve heard of) I got called to remotely help assess a refining plant using lots of gross acids, after an earthquake caused a plant evacuation and an unknown cloud of mixed something started building above it.

          Some of the high tech processes I’ve seen are truly chilling. Like, “no one in a 100 ft radius survives at all if this stuff gets released”.

          I did that work for less than 10 years. Statistics are great, but they also hide nuance like it’s their job. Anyone who has done this kind of work understands the elevated danger, though it does vary a lot from place to place (really more industry to industry).

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          3x more fatalities than national average. No it’s not in the top ten most dangerous, thats not equivalent to not dangerous though.

          • gusgalarnyk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Right, see that’s good data. That’s my only point. Not saying any specific job is or isn’t dangerous, I’m just saying the commenter seemed to be confusing “job that is around dangerous stuff” with “jobs that get people hurt often”.

      • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        The OP didn’t say they were in “heavy industry” they said they were in a specific job. A job I happen to know is safe.

        Not sure why you’d make an unforced error and change his job to your job. Especially when I literally said your job was among the most dangerous in my reply.

        • octobob@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          He already replied to you saying his job is dangerous. He said he’s around hot and explosive shit all day. I’ve been in power plants and that’s the example I gave that some of them are not fucking safe. We built panels for this nuke plant and the guy was telling me you can’t touch some of the handrails because you’ll get shocked .

          Really don’t care about how you feel about it because I’ve seen it with my eyes.

          Weird hill to die on

          • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yeah, I tested the logical extreme with him further down and he confirmed that chainsaws (arguably the most risky equipment to use) are not dangerous tools because few people die yearly from them. He also stated you would have to try really hard to injure yourself with a modern chainsaw. I don’t think hes left his room in awhile or has any experience with anything outside of internet arguments. I make posts like this so I can try to learn from people with more/different information from me. That’s evidenced in my post/comment history. If this is how his logic/brain work there is clearly nothing worth trying to learn from him.

          • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            His job is potentially dangerous, not statistically dangerous. It’s statistically very safe. We don’t call air travel less safe because you might die more often when there’s an accident…the analogy holds here.

            It’s beside the point because the most dangerous jobs aren’t well paid under capitalism, and you misunderstand communism if you believe that all jobs pay the same.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Gonna sit here and tell me my job is very safe, alright bud. I’m beginning to research communism and other forms of rule aside from capitalism, becayse, shit isn’t working for the majority, even though it is for me. I’m starting the journey by asking questions in a community I know is populated by members of said ideology. Seems like a completely reasonable starting point. Recommend me some literature, I genuinely will read it.

      • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        You gave me a very specific job title…one that I happen to know is statistically safe. If you have data that proves otherwise, present it.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          My job has statistically low deaths because of the amount of training I have and the procedures in place, though it is still 3x high in fatalities than national average. That doesn’t make the 1800 psi steam lines, natural gas lines, high voltage busses, pipe fitting, climbing ladders/pipes fucking safe. Below is a list of associated dangers, people don’t get hurt extremely often because you need a shit load of training to do this. There are also like 40,000 TOTAL power plant operators in the entire United states. Compare that to being an accountant or computer programmer dude. https://www.osha.gov/power-generation/industry-hazards

          • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            Your job remains statistically safe for all the reasons you stated. Yes, your job has a very high proportion of fatalities vs injuries…I accounted for that.

            I’m not trying to diminish you or your job. I’m just saying you’re paid well, not because it’s dangerous, but rather because you need a lot of expertise to do it and it’s more difficult for your industry to find people that fit the qualifications.

            The most dangerous jobs, like the ones I listed earlier, do not tend to pay very well if “danger” is your only metric.

            Getting back to the topic, under communism people who work in dangerous or high skilled jobs would be more likely to make more money…not less.

            • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              You’re not addressing any of the information I provided. An accountant makes a mistake, they hit backspace and correct it, I make a mistake, I lose a limb, am permanently disfigured or I lose my life… In rare cases I don’t even have to make a mistake, I just have to walk past an undetected steam leak the size of a pinhead. You know what superheated steam does to a human? These are undeniable hazards I have to navigate that the VAST majority of fields do not. But you’re saying because X amount of people dont die every year, my job is safe, thats an insane take.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Rednax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • wpb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

        You mean this dictionary definition (Oxford)?

        Needs differ, hence compensation differs. The needs of one involved in hazardous work tend to be a bit higher than those involved in baking croissants.

        • Rednax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why would the needs of someone doing more hazardous work be higher? What do they need more food/housing/entertainment/luxury for? I guess more healthcare needs, but I don’t think that is going to convince someone to do the hazardous work.

          As soon as you reward because of the hazardous working environment, it is nolonger distribution based on needs of the individual, but based on demand for the job. Rewarding based on supply and demand is capitalistic, not communistic.

          Note that I’m no supporter of either (or any) Ideology. I believe we should apply the concepts of different ideologies where they make the most sense. In this case, applying capitalism to attract people into undesirable jobs, makes sense.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Alright, so, could you adress my question though? I know that sounds cunty, but, I’m not sure how else to respond.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        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.

          • ch00f@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            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.

            • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              4 days ago

              Ayeeee got me. I still don’t see how that doesnt just create the same type of class based system we already have.

              • ch00f@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 days ago

                Because everyone would have access to the same opportunities and same schools etc. Those with better talents or a better work ethic will probably make more money. Instead of today where families hoard wealth through generations.

                • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  So different levels of society make different levels of money, allowing them to afford better qualities of life. You’re talking about capitalism.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Prestige and desire, likely.

    You would probably also see the state require some labor from people in order for society to function; I imagine that certain classes of skilled and or dangerous labor would get them from having to contribute to some manual tasks.

  • [deleted]@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

      • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          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?

          • MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            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.

                • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  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?

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 days ago

    Under Maoism or Stalinism, aka the dictatorship of the dictator pretending to act for the proletariat? You are ordered to do it, for your own good and the good of the Party. If you don’t follow orders, you just get shot; and your family is put in a prison camp, your children raped and beaten and forced to labor.

    Under real stateless, classless communism? Nobody knows, because that hasn’t existed yet. Anyone claiming to know exactly how it might operate is talking out of their hat. Marx is pretty clear on that.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah, where the dangerous job was “hunt something so you don’t starve”, the motivation for doing the dangerous job is pretty obvious.

        • Lumidaub@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Not if you live in any kind of group. “Why should I go hunt? You do it.” And then I get excluded from the group - that could still happen.

          (I’m spitballing, I know nothing about anything, just interested bystander)

        • Lumidaub@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          That’s a different topic, isn’t it? I was responding specifically to the notion that a stateless and classless society has never existed.

          • porcoesphino@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            When was this time when they never existed? A state is just a government and last time I checked anthropology pushed that back to family-ish tribes. Classes are basically tiers and you can see related splits in some family units. I think you’re either going back to monkeys, or romanticising

            • Lumidaub@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 days ago

              Both “state” and “class” have specific definitions that were developed at some point. Of course you can find similar structures anywhere living things are coexisting, that doesn’t mean they meet the common conceptions of “state” and “class”.

      • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        So you evaluated that 114k a year is worth a chance at your life? What’s the lowest you’d go?

        The biggest problem is that’s not really a considerable sum of value compared to what the upper 1% makes. There’s ALOT of wealth to go around that has been systematically stolen from you. I wouldn’t doubt a socialist society could provide you, and most people actually, the same level of luxury you are afforded today.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          I don’t care what other people make though, millions of people work significantly more dangerous gigs for significantly less and millions of people work completely safe gigs for way more. I do this because I love it AND it pays well.

          • Rhyfel@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            Isnt this a little contradictory to your earlier statement? Your income is what everyone has to make to live comfortably, a state which could easily be provided by many systems, and now you say you love it even though the luxury it affords you is around the same as an experienced flight attendant. Would that mean you’d work the same job for any system that provided for you? Considering your affinity for the job?

          • thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 days ago

            So I guess that answers your questions. In a socialist society you’d probably have the same material wealth and could work the same job

  • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Without subversive profit incentives, the incentives become to make necessary-but-undesirable jobs more safe/pleasant/automated. Without worrying about their next paycheque, people can spend time on the issue.

    This requires a post-scarcity society that is fairly well developed, before they try to convert to communism.

    I wouldn’t necessarily say that capitalism pays dangerous or unpleasant jobs well, though. Some do, but lots don’t.

  • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    the highly dangerous jobs usually are done by red states people: crab fishing in alaska, Oil drilling, fracking, lumber, because the lack of Economy and jobs in thier own state, which is probably on purpose. it all pads the pockets of the elites.

    assuming this isnt the case with communist top down RULE, it should be STEM fields, including psychology, environmental conservation, social sciences is a priority.

  • ComradeSharkfucker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    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.

    • fort_burp@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      This is a good answer and I would just like to mention the democratic / assembly nature of communism. If you have an assembly where the community has to decide “who will do this tough / dangerous job?” and someone steps up to do it, they will get the respect of the community (and probably some sexual interest from the sex(es) of their choice tbh). The human-nature aspect is important, as we are social animals. We already have this going on already, like why do game crackers and pirate groups do what they do, at significant personal danger? Reputation, among other things. That goes back to the warez scene and even to phreakers and whoever else was hacking before them.

      It could also be that a certain individual enjoys the danger or difficulty of the job.

    • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      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.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I don’t think developing a skill and wanting to be compensated for it is greed. Its just an equitable exchange of goods/services.

          • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            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?.

            • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              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.

              • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                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.

              • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Homie, I’m asking this in all honesty. How many people do you run into on a day to day basis that lists their credentials?

                You gotta take a step back and reflect.

                I’m not trying to be mean. I want you to be a happier person.

                • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  The dude asked what I do and why I feel I deserve compensation… How many comments and threads have I created? I’ve brought it up a few times when it was contextually important. I’m an extremely happy person with close to what is a perfect life for me.

          • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            By definition, it kinda is.

            You are looking for monetary compensation for a skill you developed.

            Edit to add: you are not a greedy person by wanting to survive. Neither are notable scientists completely altruistic. But the most memorable ones that leave a mark are not concerned with surviving. That may be because of their heritage more than their motivation.

  • count_dongulus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    You get more stuff, more status, etc. Or alternatively, penalized, threatened, etc. Whatever it takes to motivate people to do the job. Even if paper money isn’t a thing in communist societies (which it still is), money’s just a symbol for debt. You’re going to get something, somehow, for a job people greatly desire to be done without enough doers and they’ll become “indebted” to you disproportionately for doing it.

    In Soviet society for instance, you might be provided a nice apartment in central Moscow if you were doing something “important”. This assignment would be via your government-controlled employer and their agreements with some other government bureau that officially managed the buildings to dole them out to select people.

    So, same deal as anywhere else, just a different mechanism. Higher ration, bigger dacha, jump to the front of the line to get a car, etc.

    Compensation is usually not much about how dangerous a job is, though. It’s more about how many people are willing to do it for any number of reasons. Some people are just not very risk-adverse, and figure they’re going to be fine at a job that is more dangerous. And they’ll be compensated at a normal level as long as there are enough such people to fill the need.

  • freagle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Let me try this in levels.

    Under the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism, there is still currency/money, there is still commodity production, there are still bank accounts. So, for things that society needs but people are less willing to do, the answer is compensation. Communist parties have always compensated people for their work, yes even prison laborers, and for the work that fewer people are qualified for or fewer people desire to do, that compensation is increased to create incentives.

    When we reduce that to simplest form, the answer is incentives.

    Before capitalism, people still did dangerous work and difficult work. They didn’t do it because they were going to get rich (they weren’t), they did it because the consequences of not doing it were dire.

    In feudal and slave societies, this is because the consequences, though they might be social, we’re personalized by the oppression of lords and masters. Lords and masters beat, tortured, and killed serfs and slaves to incentivize them to do dangerous and difficult work.

    But what about before those societies? In nomadic societies, people did difficult and dangerous work because it needed to be done, and the consequences of not doing it were felt by the whole tribe. People weren’t tortured and murdered to incentivize them to do the dangerous work. In fact, people got together and tried to make the dangerous work less dangerous.

    Reducing those things down, we have an understanding of what “difficult and dangerous” work really is - socially necessary work.

    We also understand how it can be solved without incentives - socially collaborative problem solving.

    So, in the transition between capitalism and communism, we still incentives and we still have socially necessary work.

    Why do we call it a transitionary period? What is happening to make a transition?

    The transitionary period is the period of socially collaborative problem solving to make socially necessary work both less voluminous and less risky (which includes risk of harm as well as risk of understaffing and risk of knowledge loss). No one knows that communism looks like yet. But we know what contemporary experiments exist in reducing the volume and risk of socially necessary labor - robotics, real-time systems monitoring and feedback, new construction methods, new chemical science, new applications of physics, etc.

    As it turns out, sedentary lifestyles are also incredibly dangerous and lead to huge numbers of premature deaths. So it’s unlikely that communism will go the same direction capitalism seems to go, with huge numbers of people sitting in office chairs or couches for decades on end.

      • freagle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Read closer. It said:

        1. we don’t know the exact forms and processes that communism will take as it is still being built for the first time in modern history

        2. during the transitionary phase, which all communist countries you can name are in and no country has ever yet left, incentives are and have been compensation, meaning money

        3. prior incentives from pre-capitalist societies were violence

        4. prior incentives from primitive societies were the outcomes of doing the work

        5. without monetary incentives, primitive societies didn’t wonder about how to incentivize people to do dangerous work, they wondered about how to make dangerous work less dangerous

        6. as communism is built from capitalism, compensation is the incentive that will be used while society also works on reducing the need for incentives by making dangerous work less dangerous or making it obsolete. A communist society will be one where the incentives are sufficient to get the work done without being so large that they create an upper class of rich people

        I also should have said the richest among us under capitalism have never done dangerous work and that people who do dangerous work rarely become capital owners anyway.

        There is nothing contradictory about people who do more difficult or dangerous getting special privileges (which is all extra salary really amounts to) under communism.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I will read and respond to this properly by adding an edit to this comment. Im busy at the moment but I do want to genuinely thank you for putting the amount of time and effort into your answers in this thread. I know I’m answering in a kind of snarky way to most comments. Don’t take the snark as disdain for you, just a skeptical and generally snarky guy.

          Edit~ thank you for the response and all the time you took crafting it. What I understand from your response is essentially the following. We do not necessarily know what compensation for less appealing/dangerous/years of specialization jobs will look like. However, it’s likely there will likely be a quantifiable difference in quality of life. I accept that answer as its the most reasonable I’ve seen in this thread. The people saying things like “some people just enjoy a hard days work” still infuriate me though…

      • jonathan7luke@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yeah. I opened the comments because I was genuinely interested in how communism tackles this and was kind of looking forward to a thought-provoking answer. The above just kind of dances around the question entirely. I especially loved this line:

        No one knows that communism looks like yet.

        Gives me major “trust me bro” energy. Kind of reminds me of the religion I was in as a kid where every difficult question was answered with “no one fully understands God, you just have to have faith”.

        • Chippys_mittens@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          I posed the question because I’m not a communist, but, I’ve also not looked into it very much. I’m not fully in support of whatever the fuck is happening right now. So I figure, maybe some good answers will help me grasp why so many people recommend communism. Turns out its kind of a cliche question, yet, nobody seems to have an answer. Wild to me, personally, to advocate for something so world shifting without clear answers to massive questions like this. I love the comments that are just like “well some people just really like to work hard” alright, I’m not betting society on the hope some people are willing to work a 10× harder/more dangerous job for the same level of benefit.

    • 6nk06@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Your theory is very pretty and seducing. According to my relatives who lived in 2 different communist countries during the war, there is no incentive to do anything and most people sat on their asses because nothing makes a difference. And that’s why they escaped this communist heaven you mention (escaped, because you don’t leave communism without having problems).

      No one knows that communism looks like yet.

      Thanks for the laugh.

      Last but not least, in communist countries you have to put locks everywhere, especially in the kitchen, because your neighbors will steal your food. But I guess it’s not mentioned in your book “Communism for Dummies.”

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        I don’t know anything about anything. But in those two different countries, had that transition period happened that they mentioned?

        • freagle@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          There have been no countries in the modern era that have made it communism. Every communist party in the world is starting from a non-communist starting point in a world where capitalism is the dominant economic form that shapes everything. Name any Communist country and you’ll be naming a country led by a Communist Party.

          A communist party is a party that sets building communism as their goal. The process of building communism has never been complicated to date. The first experiment large scale experiment in building communism was the USSR. They lasted 70 years. Many would say they stopped even attempting to build communism around year 50 or 60.