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.
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.
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
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.
I’ll order it tonight! Thanks for the recommendation.
Not to pry but what do you consider “good pay” for those conditions?
Around 55 an hour on average in my field but lots of fluctuation based on location.
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.
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.
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
Fair enough
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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).
3x more fatalities than national average. No it’s not in the top ten most dangerous, thats not equivalent to not dangerous though.
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”.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I don’t think he’s taking a shitty stance in stating that your job is relatively safe. Just that there are tons of safety regulations and protections that keep your profession off of a list like this
So you’re saying not in top ten most dangerous is equivalent of being safe.
Lol… glad you got a better answer somewhere else in this discussion.
Be safe out there.
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.
For advanced STEM degrees, there are people who just enjoy learning that sort of thing and applying their knowledge.
In the same vein, some folks are just attracted to dangerous and difficult jobs because they get a sense of purpose or identity from it.
Others it’s community. I knew a guy who did 20 years active duty military, then joined the national guard, then took a job for the same national guard unit as a DoD civilian and stayed on until they forced him to retire. They had practically drag the guy out. He never did anything but bitch and complain about the work he spent more than 40 years doing, he sounded like kinda hated his job, but he liked being a part of the military.
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.
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.
Alright, so, could you adress my question though? I know that sounds cunty, but, I’m not sure how else to respond.
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.
So, a cast system…
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.
Ayeeee got me. I still don’t see how that doesnt just create the same type of class based system we already have.
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.
So different levels of society make different levels of money, allowing them to afford better qualities of life. You’re talking about capitalism.
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.
I mean, there was a time before states and classes were invented.
Yeah, where the dangerous job was “hunt something so you don’t starve”, the motivation for doing the dangerous job is pretty obvious.
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)
If you’re interested, you could look it up.
Here’s a quick start.
I genuinely appreciate the shithead responses. Thats how I handle threads a lot of the time too.
Not meant purely as shithead responses. I can’t contribute anything substantial to the discussion but I’m interested, so I’m throwing out random thoughts to bits and pieces and trying not to sound like I consider myself an authority on anything.
You are describing shit head responses.
Yeah, let’s go ask the cavepeople of 30,000 years ago how they handled dangerous industrial jobs in a communist country.
That’s a different topic, isn’t it? I was responding specifically to the notion that a stateless and classless society has never existed.
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
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”.
Agreed. But it sounds like you care about the time before these mechanisms occurred and then my argument is that they have similar mechanisms that trace back further than the specific terms you’re using
Yes, generally outside the context of civilization though. Combining stateless and classless with civilization is the hard part.
I happen to find working with patients at high risk of violent behaviors to be fulfilling. That said I think if people were less worried about what immediate benefit my patients have to society (as opposed to the fact that any of those people in the community could slip in the shower and get a TBI and become a very unpleasant person in under a month and would want someone to care for them too) I would probably be allocated more resources to do my job a lot more safely.
I did that when I was young, troubled teens. Horrifically difficult gig with a disgustingly low level of pay.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You’re trolling or genuinely a very stupid person.
My statements are accurate and please miss me with the ad hominem attacks…they’re not a substitute for an argument.
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?
Short answer: We don’t know
Longer answer: We hope technology will be fully developed by then to do that stuff for us
One of my favorite answers so far, thank you!
Communism doesn’t mean no money, undesirable labor will always have to be incentivized. I think most people would prefer to be incentivized with the promise of access to luxuries, higher pay, more vacation time, recognized status in the community, rather than the threat of your survival, housing, healthcare, education, etc. You would still have taxes, but critical infrastructure would be owned by the laborers and the state.
Ideally, because there would be no individual ownership of infrastructure or the means of production. So, again ideally, the profits are equitably distributed through labor instead of shareholders. One of the goals of this kind of system would be the elimination of class. Not because people can’t make more money and have more luxuries, but because everyone has the same opportunities. Whereas most of the world today you can just pay for those opportunities.
Now, how exactly do you pull this off? Idk, other than a massive cultural shift. I’m sure someone with a reply telling me what I got wrong will have that answer.
This isn’t entirely accurate. What you described is a ‘socialist’ community, the so-called ‘lower stage of communism’. In this stage, there would still remain incentive based structures for labour. It employs a policy of “from each according to his ability to each according to his works”. Inequality still exists as explained by Marx here:
This equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation… one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another… Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another. — Critique of the Gotha Programme
It is during this lower stage that the transformation of social relations and productive forces gradually alters the motivations for labor to a more virtue-based one.
The problem most communism skeptic people have with communism is that they reason within the current modes of subsistence and assume it is impossible.
“What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” — Critique of the Gotha Programme
Marx also stated that he expected us to remain in the lower stage of communism for centuries, but it is during this stage that we prepare the productive forces to sustain communism and start producing goods for their use-value rather than for their exchange value, so that we can achieve the higher stage of communism which employs 'from each according to their ability to each according to his needs. This higher stage is truly classless because we would supposedly have solved scarcity, it would be stateless because people would organize communally to meet their needs, and it would be moneyless because the means of production and means of subsistence would be free for all to access.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor… has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want… only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and society inscribe on its banners: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!’ — Critique of the Gotha Programme
based on history: not being sent to gulag?
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.
