Economic Idea

[ReincarnatedFTP]

What if instead of paper currency or credits people get payed in "Minutes" or "Hours" by the amount of time they work whether they're CEOs or manual laborers.Then you multiply the rating of importance/difficulty of the job and multiply it by hours worked. Value scales can be set such as teachers and doctors get more credits than salesman.Manual laborers would get more than a a pizza delivery guy. And so on.
The minutes and hours are used as currency.
That way people would be payed based on the effort they put into society instead of luck.

Edit:I'll check on this thread tomorrow but please, discuss.

 

[Timotei]

*snip*

Can you please tell me exactly what drug you were taking when you thought of this?

OT: You need physical capital for a stable economic system.

The problem with this system is that employers would find a way to lower wages and essentailly screw theri employees out of payment. And say this system was put into action, how would I be able to go down to 7 Eleven and pay for a slurpee?

This thread wreaks of fail.

 

[Remember_the_name]

Umm no. And we do get paid kind of like that be it salary our hourly wage, you get paid what your job is worth...

 

[Weaver]

Your idea seems half baked since it would be a sociological nightmare to determine the "wroth" of labor. You would have each group lobbying that they should all get higher wages.

And really that's how the current economy is supposed to work. Jobs of higher "value" have higher wages. I know that isn't really the case, but i think that does nothing more than prove my point.

 

[shotgunbob]

How about we get paid in Mudkipz?

You basicly posted getting paid in hours and minutes in the same way we get paid in money?

 

[Timotei]

*snip*

Your avatar is quite fitting for this situation.

 

[Seldon2639]

Um... There's no real difference between your "hours" plan and our current currency. It'd be standardized across countries, but that's the main difference. The issue with trying to make it based on "effort" rather than "luck" is this:

"the rating of importance/difficulty of the job"

Either you get to be dictator, and decide a scale for each job, or you have to leave it up to the free market. If it's dictatorial, I would want to be the one to decide, rather than letting you (the problem with fascism is everyone thinks they can do it better). Thus, you'll leave it to the marketplace to decide the relative merits of each job. But we do that, it's called a "salary". The reason a CEO makes a massive pile of cash is because his board of directors decided he's worth that amount. Thus, under your system, instead of getting paid 20M straight out, he'd work 40 hours a week (or at least claim to) and simply have a much higher difficulty multiplier.

Also, this ignores all investments, would make savings and loans difficult to deal with, and would really mess up any kind of capital gains. Also, what do you do about taxes?

tl;dr, your plan is flawed in many ways.

 

[Weaver]

*snip*

Your avatar is quite fitting for this situation.

It has many uses!

 

[Thamous]

No that a bad idea and you should feel bad. Now that the harmless insults are out of the way, who is to decide which job is more important than another? When someone employs you its up to them to set a satisfactory wage that will allow you and them both to make satisfactory amounts of money, what you get paid is between no one but you and your employer.

 

[lostclause]

This would mean you're not getting paid for production but instead time, a problem which means that you can clock on 5hrs doing one simple task or an hour and you get paid more for your inefficiency. Effort is not a good measurement, production is.

 

[InfernoJesus]

I don't understand how exchanges could be done. How could you buy a loaf of bread with work hours? If credits are used, credits would simply be a different currency. It would be the exact same system with a different name for the currency. I don't understand the point.

 

[Necrofudge]

What the hell happened to the days when just having a currency seemed revolutionary and nobody wanted to go back to the goddamn barter system?

 

[SonicKoala]

How is our current system based on "luck", other than things like the lottery? Second, you said a teacher and a doctor should make more than a salesman. What if the salesman sells an unprecedented amount of product one day, shouldn't he get paid more accordingly? I really fail to see how your system would be an improvement upon the current one... we already pay based on value of work, which is usually determined by the market.

 

[quiet_samurai]

That's kind of how it already works man, all you're doing is substituting one form of currencey for the other and not solving anything.

 

[rainman2203]

Methinks you should leave the economics to the people who got degrees in economics. Believe it or not, some people out there study this kind of stuff for a living.
Also, there are A LOT of reasons we use physical money still, despite electronics handling much of our finances. Not to mention the thought of instigating such a thing- the logistics alone would bankrupt any country that tried it. And the fraud... oh the fraud that could occur.

 

[NeutralDrow]

These "work hours" have nothing to back them up, the have no value. The reason why paper money works is because it's all backed up by gold in the treasury.

Not since the 1970s, at least here in the U.S. Currency is backed up by the full faith and credit of the federal government.

Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, though. The idea is basicaly what we have now, but with everything that makes the system work removed.

 

[randomsix]

*snip*

Can you please tell me exactly what drug you were taking when you thought of this?

OT: You need physical capital for a stable economic system.

The problem with this system is that employers would find a way to lower wages and essentailly screw theri employees out of payment. And say this system was put into action, how would I be able to go down to 7 Eleven and pay for a slurpee?

This thread wreaks of fail.

All he's proposing is that we set hourly wages for every job. He explains it in a roundabout and confusing manner, but his minutes/hours = money.

 

[Timotei]

All he's proposing is that we set hourly wages for every job. He explains it in a roundabout and confusing manner, but his minutes/hours = money.

I got that, but do you not see the problems with such a system?

 

[randomsix]

All he's proposing is that we set hourly wages for every job. He explains it in a roundabout and confusing manner, but his minutes/hours = money.

I got that, but do you not see the problems with such a system?

I'm not saying that it's the right thing to do. I'm just saying he is esoterically describing wage controls.