Make it make sense

You're viewing a single thread.

133 comments

It's actually about power and leverage, not lifestyle. Rich people don't actually spend most of their money on personal luxuries, they spend it on acquiring more wealth, which translates into more control over resources and people's lives. Regular people don't actually spend most of their money on luxuries, they spend it on maintaining their place in a world someone else owns.
The narrative that it is about what level of material status someone is living in or deserves is a distraction. It wouldn't matter at all if the rich started living more spartan lifestyles. They still have the wealth and power, that will manifest one way or another as control over other people's lives, and that's what they're really there for.
- The point is that if that money is used to pay employees properly, the wealth/power balances evaporate, and we'll have a much fairer society society where our democracy isn't undermined by monied interests.
  
  if [yacht money] is used to pay employees properly, the wealth/power balances evaporate
  Several issues with this. As other comments have pointed out, the specific money in question here isn't actually very significant. But say you expand what's considered to all company profits. A company won't voluntarily pay more for a service of a given quality than they have to, because its existence depends on being better at profit seeking than other companies. If they do have to (maybe because of a regulation) pay more than the market rate, the priority is going to be reorganizing the business to employ fewer people, overwork the people who are still employed, or otherwise arrange themselves so that as much of the profits as possible are still going to the owners. The power dynamic between employer and employee remains the same, because their relative negotiating power is largely unchanged, and so would be the balance of wealth.
  
  the specific money in question here isn't actually very significant.
  It's all the revenue leeched away from workers to shareholders - that's the majority of the entire global economy. What are you talking about?
  A company won't voluntarily pay more for a service of a given quality than they have to, because its existence depends on being better at profit seeking than other companies.
  I'm not proposing we make it voluntary.
  If they do have to (maybe because of a regulation) pay more than the market rate, the priority is going to be reorganizing the business to employ fewer people, overwork the people who are still employed, or otherwise arrange themselves so that as much of the profits as possible are still going to the owners.
  Companies aren't welfare schemes - they run as lean as possible today. I'm proposing the workers be the owners.
  The power dynamic between employer and employee remains the same, because their relative negotiating power is largely unchanged, and so would be the balance of wealth.
  Workers own the company, workers get paid fairly, workers decide how the company is run. Shareholders no longer exist, and must live off the welfare state or get a real goddamn job.
  
  I’m proposing the workers be the owners.
  What I like about this solution is that it does to some extent directly address the problem of negotiating power. I am skeptical about the practicality and sustainability though. For example there was a worker owned brewery I was aware of, which had an employment scheme in which accumulated time in the company translated into shares of ownership. The brewery became successful, and the now somewhat wealthy workers preferred to keep their wealth rather than continuing to distribute it to new employees, and so they voted to sell and accept a payout. I'm not sure this is an easily solved issue; it seems that any financial endeavor will have winners and losers, and the winners will do what they can to retain their position.
  
  This is because co-ops these days still have to compete in a capitalist market, and need to be ruthless to remain competitive. I'm not saying this is good. Just that it's not a problem inherent to worker management - it's a problem with the system they have to work under.
  If this worker management extended to the whole economy - i.e. socialism - then these incentives would no longer exist. The economy would no longer be a competition requiring ruthless tactics.
  
  The Mondragon Corporation is an interesting example of a cooperative scaling up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
  
  Isn't this solved if you can't sell your shares?
  
  I don't think it would be. What happens when someone leaves the company or is pushed out? Automatically lose their shares? Who determines what proportion of shares or pay you get for which roles or level of seniority? What about nepotism? Ownership implies control, control gets used to advance your own interests.
  
  This is far enough down the line with enough positive progress to be had in the meantime (e.g. German-style employee representation in boards, greater share grants to employees, etc.) that I'm comfortable figuring that one out later.
  My gut feel would be that you share profits while you work for the company and lose the shares when you leave. There would be a fairly equitable allocation of shares irrespective of roles with employees to vote for greater allocations if needs dictate. Nepotism would be dramatically reduced compared to today with a more democratic workplace. Much like I like my countries democratic, I like my workplaces democratic - the interests of the workers are the interests of the nation.
  
  you share profits while you work for the company and lose the shares when you leave. There would be a fairly equitable allocation of shares irrespective of roles
  In that case there's an issue with long term decision making and hiring; if you are planning to leave soon and will have no stake in the future of the company, there isn't much incentive to take it into account when voting on decisions. Likewise there is reason to be much more reluctant to hire unknown people for this reason - why let an unaccountable person have influence over crucial decisions? In the case of a worker owned company that has become very successful (say to the point where everyone is paid $150 an hour), those grandfathered-in workers are in a situation where the value of their employment contract greatly exceeds the market value of their labor itself. Even if they are prevented from selling that directly, they still have control over revenue so long as they retain their position. The natural response there I think is to want to heavily favor new hires that you are personally connected to; where you already have an interest in their enrichment, and who have external reasons to be invested in your interests and the interests of the company, which is why I mention nepotism and think it would be a bigger problem. Removing the possibility of selling something doesn't remove the ability or incentive to use that thing to enrich yourself, the pressure is all still there.
  the interests of the workers are the interests of the nation
  Why would they be? My gut feel is that for this sort of thing to work without problems cannot be done with a single simple change or rule, because that one change isn't going to be able to convince people to favor the nation above the wealth and status of themselves and their families, or remove all the conflicts of interest that exist between those. Especially not people used to the current system. I think it would be more effective to redistribute wealth independently from employment to keep things simple and let markets keep working without too much unexpected distortion. With a higher baseline and less desperation it would be more feasible to form worker collectives to begin with, without a need for state mandates enforcing them to be operated in a particular way.
  
  if you are planning to leave soon and will have no stake in the future of the company, there isn't much incentive to take it into account when voting on decisions.
  You're comparing that unfavorably to today, where 1 person who may be leaving is making that decision compared to a group of people who are far less likely to all be leaving. My proposal is an improvement on the current state.
  why let an unaccountable person have influence over crucial decisions?
  They're accountable to the workers that voted then in to that position and can vote them out. This is compared to what accountability today?
  The natural response there I think is to want to heavily favor new hires that you are personally connected to; where you already have an interest in their enrichment, and who have external reasons to be invested in your interests and the interests of the company, which is why I mention nepotism and think it would be a bigger problem.
  With decision making being democratised across employees who have a vested interest in the success of the company, this would be a smaller problem than today where one unaccountable manager can make a unilateral decision.
  (the interests of the workers are the interests of the nation (Why would they be?
  Because the vast majority of the population works for a living. Handing the wealth and reins of power to unproductive owners as we do today is massively detrimental to the economy. People would be democratically acting in their own self-interest.
  With a higher baseline and less desperation it would be more feasible to form worker collectives to begin with, without a need for state mandates enforcing them to be operated in a particular way.
  In a more equitable society, there would be less motivation to collectivise, but whatever gets the job done. To reach that point, we'd need to engage in some pretty fundamental restructuring of the economy though - I'm not sure why we wouldn't just keep on trucking toward better outcomes rather than stopping half way.
  
  Shareholders at least the ones beating the market have a different skill set to workers. Replacing them with other workers might have issues with long term success.
  I think you'd be better off changing laws that suppress workers wages and laws that unnecessary increase their expenses particularly rent
  
  Owning things isn't a skill, my dude. This is evident in the fact that almost the entire human race owns something.
  
  Agreed on owning things I was talking about those getting an above market return.
  
  Of what value is that to society? If there's no value and massive downsides, why should we ~~protect~~ reward them?
  
  Yeah the premise of the system is that society is benefiting. In practice I would agree that's not always and maybe majorly not the case. In Australia there was a Henry tax review report that details a lot of changes to improve this situation unfortunately many have not been implemented. I'm sure the situation is similar worldwide.
  
  This is kinda my point - I'm not interested in the empty arguments and spin - I'm interested in what's best.
  Unfortunately, the Australian government has a habit of commissioning studies rather than taking action (we've risen to power under the status quo - why would we change it?) - The Henry review was probably taken less seriously than the Gonski report.
  
  When the market is shaped by austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression, then "getting an above market return" depends on austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression (which still is not the same as the "skill set" of owning shares).
  Your objection sidesteps the broader observations, of how the masses of workers are oppressed by the greed of the very few, who sustain a self-serving narrative.
  
  That skillset would no longer be relevant; their jobs would be made redundant. Companies in this scenario no longer need to seek growth and increasing profit margins. They only need to earn enough to pay their own salaries. And, because the workers are the ones who collectively manage the company, they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions.
  
  In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you've made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people. Like in electrical engineering.
  The more your "path-shortening" effect, the bigger your profit.
  It's a system leading to optimization (in abstract).
  they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions
  While this isn't.
  I'd be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed. Just with leftist conversations it always looks like "the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let's get rid of them".
  
  In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you’ve made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people.
  In an abstract sense, sure. But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good. If it's more expensive to dispose of waste ethically, for example, then waste will be disposed of unethically.
  Like in electrical engineering.
  Yes, I can't argue that jobs exist that help other people.
  The more your “path-shortening” effect, the bigger your profit.
  Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.
  It’s a system leading to optimization (in abstract).
  In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.
  While this isn’t.
  Why not?
  I’d be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed.
  Okay. Me, too.
  Just with leftist conversations it always looks like “the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let’s get rid of them”.
  I really don't mean to be snide, but you have this backwards. Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars. Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic. The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.
  
  But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good.
  It requires you to do something, and scale may make production cheaper, for example.
  Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.
  How so? Insurance is one of the most ingenious things I can think about which market economy allows. Leveraging probabilities to protect each separate participant from some event which would be too expensive without it.
  In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.
  That happens in planned economies just as well and worse.
  Why not?
  Because with private\public companies there is some criterion by which a company is being optimized, it's profit (in general, though with public companies things already work more complex, which is how Apple\MS\etc look so weird).
  With what you describe, first, the response is going to be slow, as it's democratic planning, second, every worker is going to vote in his own perceived interest. At best it's going to be just like public companies, at worst most of such companies are not going to be able to support themselves existing.
  I mean, okay, it's going to have an element of optimization too (cause it's still going to be capitalist in essence), just possibly less efficient in general. But may bypass some of the traps for public companies.
  Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars.
  Only to make them mandatory for everyone. And then see the following.
  Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic.
  Not necessarily. But they are all bureaucratic.
  The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.
  What one needs, what one thinks one needs, and what one can choose from are three different stages, and then there's another stage of what one receives in response.
  And these are managed by bureaucracies. Point being, with markets you at least don't have to build a bureaucracy for market operations per se.
  
  You think a socialist economy is "not necessarily" democratic..? It is democratic by definition.
  
  Actually every known one IRL is not.
  
  I agree. As a major shareholder and successful business owner, I’m far better at relaxing on a beach in Bali than the lazy poors are. Our skill sets are not comparable.
  
  The power dynamic between employer and employee remains the same, because their relative negotiating power is largely unchanged, and so would be the balance of wealth.
  Louder for the people in the back.
  
  welcome to commnistium
  Just a joke
  
  If we can level the inequality before transitioning so power doesn't just reconsolidate, yeah - that'd be great.
- Many other distractions, like skin color, religion, sex orientation. Poor have one advantage and that is the numbers, at least in democracies. So you need to gerrymander them in any way you can think about.
  
  No, having superior numbers is not necessarily an advantage. Crowds have unpleasant effects due to scale, when you'd want to organize them on some issue or even just inform them.
  
  I'm not talking riots, I'm talking voting.
  
  Even in that case. People often vote against their own best interest. Crowd effects play a big role in this.
  
  But still, it's the best thing the gen pop has.

133 comments