ㅤㅤPiecework wages are necessary for socialist development in areas with backward productivity because they can accommodate the significant differences in labor ability among individuals. Only after productivity improves further can they transition to time-based wages.
ㅤㅤPiecework wages are retained in some less developed areas where manual labor dominates, not because they can stimulate production enthusiasm. Rather, when productivity is relatively low, implementing time wages can lead to situations similar to the collective wealth of poor teams, which can easily cause dissatisfaction.
ㅤㅤWhen productivity is low, differences in labor ability are more apparent. However, even after productivity increases, wage disparities will still exist due to other factors, such as differences between new and old workers, between different processes and shifts, etc., which are not caused by differences in labor ability. At this point, to maintain the distribution according to work and prevent individual workers from focusing solely on their gains and losses, and to prevent wage disparities among workers caused by factors outside of labor ability, a time-based wage system should be adopted.
ㅤㅤRegarding the relationship between distribution methods and enthusiasm, simply adopting different distribution methods cannot inherently motivate people. At most, it can eliminate the negative effects caused by unfair distribution. If a person’s ideology is backward, then under piecework wages, they might cheat and produce substandard products, while under time wages, they might slack off. In such cases, improving their enthusiasm cannot be achieved merely by changing the distribution method; it requires ideological education to discourage laziness and encourage working more for more pay. Therefore, the question of which distribution method is more reasonable and how it affects productivity is entirely separate. Confusing the two turns it into a matter of material incentives, as if simply paying more money will make people work harder.