Job complexes and remuneration thought


I’m quite new to the theory of parecon.  I have been reading quite a bit, and I have an obvious inquisition.  There is one thought that always comes to my mind regarding remuneration and job complex.  It may sound obvious, which I think the answer is rightfully so; to just accept your job complex because that is what you want to do.  But for the matter of my first blog, I’ve always wondered about remuneration for a profession or job that requires a lot of skills and learning versus one that does not.  An example would be that of an engineer.  Engineering requires plenty of education and learning to design correctly.  Under parecon, would an engineer get allocated the same as any other job complex if both effort and sacrifice was identical?  Under parecon, would it be right to assume people would ‘want’ to be an engineer, solely because its what they want to do, even though it requires plenty more effort and sacrifice to learn to be an engineer and also to produce as one while getting the same rewards and payment for a job complex that just requires common sense (considering time and effort was equal)?  In other words, I am wondering if being an engineer, since it requires a lot more effort to learn and do as a job/profession, would get rewarded or allocated more versus a simple job/profession if time and effort was identical?

I don’t want to sound like I’m attacking parecon (which I don’t think I am), because it is exactly what the world needs, it’s just a little bit of detailed information I haven’t came across in the articles I have read.  And no, I’m not an engineer, it’s just an example.

RT

Leave a comment