The dream of less work

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Noone would ofcourse be forced to work less, but if they like they could.

...Just like people can take a part time job today if they want to and can live with the lower income?

And by reallocating resources those who work less still will be able to earn the same salary.

Nope. See my previous post - just printing money to give out will cause economic problems.

And the pay that the workers receive could be regulated by rules and laws so the company is not tempted to pay less.

That's already done.

You do not have to print out money, you have to distribute resources (which money is a representation of more equally among the population. That can be done by taxing the rich and redistribute their wealth. Also companies can be owned by the state, by all people together and the revenues be distributed in a fair way. Not impossible if one can fight of the selfish greedy capitalists.

...then don't talk about 'creating wealth' in such a context.
If you overtax someone, they will go elsewhere, bringing all their investments, bank accounts and businesses with them, and more profit to Switzerland, various island nations, Monaco, etc. Indeed, if you go too far, people will have no motivation to get a better job or promotion if they are not making any more money but have more/harder work. That's why the USSR collapsed, because you got your food from the bread queue, your 2 toilet rolls per year, and got to use the village bath plug once per month no matter whether you worked your assigned job at People's Soviet tractor Factory enthusiastically with an eye towards efficiency and quality, or did the bare minimum while producing shoddy products by the same flawed old process and still got the same either way. Nobody went into advanced fields because there was no reason for them to; nobody is altrustic towards an authoritarian regime itself.

As I said before, state owned business is not viable. They tend to succumb to overbureaucracy, lack of cost-effectiveness, and become massive money-sinks thanks to their tendency to throw good money after bad. Paying the same amount of money to provision services or goods via private industry will prove superior every time on quantity/quality or return.

You can also have jobs in a state owned, or collectively owned enterprises where the revenues are distributed between the workers and to the society in general.

Most people would rather have freedom of choice, not to mention a more lucrative job, since the entire point of a proper business is that they can attract people by offering more money. Look at Cuba - everyone earned the same there, and professionals got completely screwed over in comparison, so it became something nobody wanted to do compared to something easy and unskilled.

It is contraproductive to let the money be concentrated on a few rich people, it creates an unequal society with increased risks for conflicts and unhealth.

[citation needed]
Without investment, nothing works. Including government; and therefore including statist micromanagement.

No, but people can still own the resources collectively and work less hours, and with more mechanization the amount of work could still decrease.

Who do you think pioneers such processes? That's right, entrepreneurs; who you just eliminated with such an idea. Authoritarian systems do not produce anything other than unskilled, unmotivated workers en masse, who are controlled by coercion rather than their own initiative.

And the pensions should also be managed collectively to decrease the risk that a few individuals (owners of insurance companies and similar) gets rich on other peoples saved money.

I don't think you understand economics. The point is that what is provided by government is less efficient, so the recipients of the fund make less money than they would having invested with a private company. There is not a set return per unit that is consistent across all funds. Better managed funds with better investments perform better and produce more return on capital across the board, for employees AND members. It's understandable not to leave everyone free to invest for their future themselves as some people would not and therefore become dependent on tax-funded welfare drawn from others, but by doing so, they are reducing the potential return of those that would do so themselves.