It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases.
It would be impossible to quantify it because there's no objective measure of value. The current system allows value to be quantified by people's revealed preferences: the jobs people are willing to pay more for get paid higher. If there's no market for labor then there's no revealed preferences and it's impossible to know which jobs are creating more value for people (only what jobs are creating more value by some bureaucrats personal subjective measure of value).
Even the same thing can be valued differently, depending on the location, circumstances, etc.
Tbh I'm not an economics specialist to account for all variables but I can't see how it would be any different from fiat in terms of complexity.
That value not only has a very wide range, but also it’s constantly fluctuating. If you try to centrally dictate it, you’ll be constantly getting it wrong, distorting the labor market just as badly as artificially low interest rates distort other aspects of the economy.
I'd think, the reason that a surgeon is paid more than a garbage disposal person is the ammount of time, brain power and skill it takes to learn/master.
In the grand scheme of things, number wise, if the garbage disposal guys are gone (or just refuse to work for 1 year), a lot more people will be sick and die. In todays world, we can't do without them. Why would a surgeon be paid more if he only saves 10000 lives during his lifetime when cleaners keep millions safe from disease, rat infestations, etc? How about those guys that work at water purification plants that keep cities running and that surgeon clean?
I'm not bashing surgeons here. I'm one of the guys that made it through a poped apedix thanks to a surgeon that realized what was going on and did the surgery within 1h of me collapsing.
I'm questioning the concept of rewarding labour based on "value to society". IMHO, that works only for basic needs and services. Food, shelter, security, etc. Anything above that... not so much or at best, debatable.
There are some supply and demand dynamics to it, for example surgeons are less replaceable than garbage men due to 8+ years of education required, so they will have less supply relative to demand, driving up the cost of their services.
And time is a factor as well - usually when people need a surgeon the problem is urgent and immediate, as you mention about your own experience, so they’re willing to pay more.
Also in your example, you have to compare on a 1-to-1 basis. How many lives does 1 garbage collector save, vs 1 surgeon. And if all the garbage men quit, how quickly could they be replaced, vs same with all the surgeons?
>"the only objective measure of value is what people will pay for it" - I think the ratio between demand/supply would be a more accurate one. I really don't know what systems have been proposed like this but "what people will pay for it" wouldn't be an option.
The whole chain - raw product to shelf would be (?mostly) quantified and you'll pay what is is out of your "produced/contributed hours".
In that regarding not much would change compared to today. Just the currency and formula used.
Production can be ramped up or down just like today, manufacturing lines closed, etc. Nothing special there.
The main difference is the currency used would be the same all over the place and that (ideally) labour h value for a particular skill would be rated the same everywhere in the world. A laboured in UK would have the same h coef. as one in China. This could also contribute to distribution of production centres more evenly around the world (ideally).
Don't get me wrong. It's just a discussion of sorts and no system is perfect. I just think something like this would help equalize things in some way and still motivate those that want to do more to do so. At the moment, all 'isms have their issues and I'm "hoping" a hybrid of sorts would be worth trying at this stage. I'm not pro any of them and agaist all of them... sort of.
