The Value of Time
/(Written for /’Observation’ Magazine/ in 1993) - Introduction by Editor
Catherine Maggi/
“The amount we earn in the form of a salary, wage, fee, commission or
other form of payment is most often dependent on the time we are willing
to spend, and what we are able to do during that time. The value of a
person’s time is indicated by the amount others are willing to pay for a
service, in other words, how much they value the time of another
/In a recent *Introduction to Permaculture* course, presented by
Margaret RainbowWeb, participants decided amongst themselves upon the
fee for the course and how each person would pay. Margaret believes
right livelihood involves changing our attitude about money. In the
following article she explains how the practical exercise had a very
interesting outcome./”
We began by brain-storming. We ranged over social justice issues, the
ethics of using money to confer status and value, power and the mis-use
of power, the apparent impossibility of changing things, and how
imperative it is that we do so. It became obvious that the task we had
set ourselves was not simple.
Time was limited, so we moved on to the specific task of deciding how
much my time and skills were worth to the course participants.
*Carers, Educators and Gardeners, doing work that will shape the real
future of the world*
This proved uncomfortable for us all, as we realised how many value
judgements are made by our society - and endorsed by us - when deciding
how much to pay people. We discussed the inequities of paying senior
public servants large salaries, while placing no value on such skills as
raising children, household budgeting, or supporting a partner
physically and emotionally, thus enabling him/her to concentrate on work
outside the home.
We noted that carers, educators and gardeners, doing work that will
shape the real future of the world, were less valued than those handling
large amounts of money. We soon agreed, with some relief, not to attempt
to reward skills, or assess the potential value of the course to each
person, but just to set an hourly rate for my time.
We each reduced our income to an hourly rate. The lowest, $4, was for
caring for elderly people in their homes. A University lecturer,
surprisingly, when his total hours were considered, earned between $8
and $9 per hour, and an office worker $10. Again, we found the ’simple’
task was really very complex.
Eventually we agreed on the number of hours for which each person would
pay me. Five people participated in a course of 18 hours. To pay 18
hours each was considered unreasonable. To pay 3 1/2 hours left people
feeling they were not paying enough. We compromised on 6 hours, or the
equivalent in labour and/or goods. This meant that, when setting an
actual rate, people would be considering a fair rate for their own
labour as well as mine.
*People would be considerhg a fair rate for their own labour as well as
mine.*
Having slept on the problem, we agreed upon $10 per hour, i.e. $60 or
its equivalent, for the whole course.
Two participants were on Social Security Benefits, but concessions were
seen as irrelevant, as money was not the preferred form of payment.
As no-one belonged to the LETS system, contracts were proposed, and some
agreed.
One participant hosted the course, supplied refreshments, transport, and
did some laminating for me.
Someone cleaned the house of a friend of mine when they moved, in return
for which the friend gave me her old washing machine.
A woman who has agreed to work with me to install a fitted kit wardrobe
in my home said she felt really empowered by my confidence that she had
the skill to carry out the task.
Five stripped mattress springs, delivered to my home, were deemed worth
six hours work.
Word-processing, painting, and heavy cleaning are other tasks being
considered as parts of the contracts.
Everyone found the exercise personally challenging, and said they would
never be able to see money in the same way again.
Major conclusions were:
* Money is not a commodity in its own right, but just a convenient
means of exchange.
* Money is an addictive substance and society encourages this
addiction.
* We can change the way we think about and use money.
* Since money is not real, it is not a true resource.
* We can empower ourselves by developing our personal and collective
resources, such as skills, information, produce, recycling, mutual
assistance, and community relationships.
As one participant /(the lowest paid!)/ enthusiastically stated:
*”I realise now that poverty is a state of mind. I am a rich woman,
because I have, and am surrounded by, a wealth of real resources”*
http://www.users.on.net/~arachne/time.html