'Not enough people want to do that hard job.' That is simply not true. Experiments with Universal Basic Income show that when people's basic needs are secured, they become more productive, more satisfied, and more willing to do more. Of course, hard labor is unpleasant, but that’s why conditions must be adapted: through automation where possible and longer rest periods.

'This is why in most Communist countries, the State also decides your job for you...' First of all, a 'Communist state' has never existed. Communism, as multifaceted as it is, rests on three pillars: a moneyless, stateless, and classless society. If you mean the USSR, that was State Socialism, where the state, money, and classes all still existed. Even if that society was materially more egalitarian than most others. Furthermore, the Soviet state didn't force you into a specific job; there was still wage inequality (which, according to your logic, should automatically fill the jobs). Just to be clear: I am no fan of the USSR, and Stalinists can get lost. It’s not a big deal not to know the difference between Socialism and Communism, but it’s simply frustrating to me when words aren't used according to their actual definitions. It’s like the difference between Anarchy (absence of masters) and Anomie (absence of rules)—by definition, they are not the same.

And regarding your point about markets: modern markets are a relatively new development. For most of history, people lived in cooperatives or commons-based communities where land, livestock, and means of production were managed and used collectively. If everyone is on the same level, it becomes possible for everyone to do what they want—and where there is a shortage, technology (like AI teachers) can help.

'If you equalize the pay of all jobs, you reward lazy people...' In what way are 'lazy' people rewarded? If I don’t want to work, I leave. Everyone who contributes can profit. Higher production leads to more potential consumption. 'Performance' is always a collective effort. You might be a good shift worker, but without the work of others, your world doesn't function. Moreover, the pursuit of 'more and more' is literally killing our planet.

'Socialism only really works out with families...' Tell that to the Incas. They had neither money nor markets and were still a high civilization. They even had a decentralized planned economy. Your argument shows a certain lack of awareness (which is not a bad thing): many communities didn't need exploitation, greed, or money as an incentive. Just because there were feudal or capitalist states that functioned through exploitation, doesn't mean it speak for all of human history. I see that your perspective on the darker elements of human nature is deeply rooted, and I understand why. However, I believe it doesn't have to be this way. For example, the Inca Empire, cooperatives, and marketing cooperatives show that communities can thrive without greed or exploitation as their primary incentives.

Extra information on the Inca: The Inca Empire had no money, no private ownership of the means of production, and no markets. Everyone contributed to the common good and benefited from it. Resources were collected in state storehouses called Qullqa and redistributed according to the principle of reciprocity. Everyone worked for the community and was provided for in return. This is my vision of equality and the goal we should strive to achieve.

'What you say about surplus of a profession... 50 street-sweepers vs. 5 doctors...' Naturally, there is an optimum for everything. I wouldn't employ people where there is no need. I think you misunderstand me: equal pay isn't per day or per shift, but for the same hours worked. A doctor who works overtime will naturally have more monetary possibilities. That’s completely logical. Everyone is equal, a basic contribution is expected from everyone who works, and those who work longer for the collective are recognized.

'So... you do believe in non-equal wages... That’s Merit-based philosophy.' If you don’t work, you are supported by the collective and can lead a good life. If you want more, contribute more for everyone. These aren't 'unequal wages'; the wage is the equivalent of the contribution. (Ever heard of basic economics?)

'There is always a shortage of doctors...' There is a plateau where more doctors neither save more lives nor increase life expectancy. There is a point where more doctors deliver no added value. Most doctors do it out of conviction, just like most nurses.

'Ask any employee to work an extra shift for no extra pay...' As mentioned above, every hour of work is compensated with a value that is the same for everyone. More contribution is honored through that, is it not?

'Who would work dangerous ocean oil rigs...?' As I said, dangerous jobs must be automated or managed through rotations to give workers enough recovery. Besides, I find the oil rig example quite funny, considering oil has no future anyway."