"One of the main questions about this is who would do boring, low paid work..."
First, let's assume we are starting from scratch and reassigning what "work" is compensated with pay and what work is not.
For the purposes of our thought experiment, ignore "low paid" and "high paid" below, because we have not yet decided what work will be compensated with pay, let alone how much pay. Hence "boring, low paid work" becomes just "boring work".
Next, let's further assume that "boring work" describes the type of work that people do not normally want to do.
And here's the though experiment: What if the converse of "boring work" (e.g., "interesting work") was not actually "work"?
That is, what if "interesting work" was not compensated? What if people were not paid for doing what they are naturally inclined to do, i.e., for doing what they love?
What if we only compensated people for doing "boring work"?
Remarkably, this actually does not sound too far from reality. Because that is exactly what many people do in order to be compensated: boring work. Similarly, many of us do plenty of "work" for which we are not compensated.
What's different about the thought experiment is that we reassess whether persons who refuse to do boring work in favor of interesting work should actually be paid. After all, they are doing what they love. And they would presumably do this regardless of payment.
If only the "grunt workers" get paid, then we have created an incentive to do grunt work. We have not removed the incentive to do more interesting, "higher level" work because that incentive does not find its basis in compensation, for this is the "work" that people actually want to do, regardless of payment. Or so that's what they always tell us.
But I have a thought experiment for you.
"One of the main questions about this is who would do boring, low paid work..."
First, let's assume we are starting from scratch and reassigning what "work" is compensated with pay and what work is not.
For the purposes of our thought experiment, ignore "low paid" and "high paid" below, because we have not yet decided what work will be compensated with pay, let alone how much pay. Hence "boring, low paid work" becomes just "boring work".
Next, let's further assume that "boring work" describes the type of work that people do not normally want to do.
And here's the though experiment: What if the converse of "boring work" (e.g., "interesting work") was not actually "work"?
That is, what if "interesting work" was not compensated? What if people were not paid for doing what they are naturally inclined to do, i.e., for doing what they love?
What if we only compensated people for doing "boring work"?
Remarkably, this actually does not sound too far from reality. Because that is exactly what many people do in order to be compensated: boring work. Similarly, many of us do plenty of "work" for which we are not compensated.
What's different about the thought experiment is that we reassess whether persons who refuse to do boring work in favor of interesting work should actually be paid. After all, they are doing what they love. And they would presumably do this regardless of payment.
If only the "grunt workers" get paid, then we have created an incentive to do grunt work. We have not removed the incentive to do more interesting, "higher level" work because that incentive does not find its basis in compensation, for this is the "work" that people actually want to do, regardless of payment. Or so that's what they always tell us.