Louis,
This is an interesting comment and one that should be recognized
more by labour economists. A number of years ago (many
numbers) I was passing a campaign office of the NDP for an
election that had been called, unexpectedly, just days before. I
dropped in and to my surprise saw an engineer with the provincial
hydro company sitting behind the desk. I said "How did you know
the election was going to be held so you could take your
holidays.?"
He replied, "I'm not on holidays, I'm working."
I asked, "How come?"
He replied, "I am a trouble shooter. I only need to work when the
system crashes." and here comes the punch line -- "I get paid for
what I know, not for what I do."
Personally, I have tried to introduce this into my labour economics
classes -- that tier of workers who are paid for what (or who) they
know, not for what they do.
It certainly doesn't fit the normal marginal productivity model of
orthodox economists (but then few labour markets do.)
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 10:56:56 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:1109] Random thoughts on Big Brother, advertising and
the Internet
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Yesterday as I was recounting the feud on alt.politics.socialism.trotsky
> which led to my being victimized at work, a friend politely but firmly
> insisted I needed a psychotherapist. Leaving aside the question of why I
> would want to throw 100 dollars down the toilet each week, I tried to
> explain to her why I waste my time there.
>
> It is this simple. I am not wasting time--I am killing time. I am a
> maintenance programmer which means that unless there is a problem with the
> production system I am assigned to, I really have nothing to do from 9 to 5
> each day. If I worked as a fireman, nobody would raise an eyebrow if I
> played checkers all day, but in the corporate world (including an Ivy
> League corporation) you have to keep up the appearance of being 'productive'.