US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1646

On July 09 2019 22:50 Nebuchad wrote:


Never said it was exclusive to neoliberalism, it's just what we have today.

A socialist system would be better in that it allocates more power to the workers of the company and by doing so it makes it definitionally harder for companies to choose profit over the wellbeing of workers in the way that delocalisation (in this example, but not exclusively) allows today.

On July 09 2019 22:53 Acrofales wrote:

Not really. How does your system of worker-owned companies in an overall market economy stop your worker-owned companies from going bankrupt if their products are more expensive (or worse quality) than competitor's products (which are produced in <insert random exploited economy>)?

Or, for that matter, how are your taxi drivers going to compete with my fleet of (cheaper) self-driving cars?

On July 09 2019 22:55 Nebuchad wrote:


It doesn't stop that. Am I supposed to end bankruptcy? Oô

On July 09 2019 22:59 Acrofales wrote:

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Companies don't move factories abroad (or automate them) because they want to fire lots of people, they do it because they can produce the same product at a lower cost. And if *they* don't do it, then somebody else will and they will just go out of business. You seem to think that banning investor-owned companies and making them all worker-owned will put workers in a better economic position. It won't. It'll just mean they have to make the choice between half of them losing their jobs and all of them losing their jobs: the choice the investors make now.

The only part this stops is the squeezing of salaries in order to pay dividends to stockholders (as the workers are now the stockholders), but there are less intrusive ways of doing that (such as a big capital gains tax).

On July 09 2019 22:59 Acrofales wrote:

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Companies don't move factories abroad (or automate them) because they want to fire lots of people, they do it because they can produce the same product at a lower cost. And if *they* don't do it, then somebody else will and they will just go out of business. You seem to think that banning investor-owned companies and making them all worker-owned will put workers in a better economic position. It won't. It'll just mean they have to make the choice between half of them losing their jobs and all of them losing their jobs: the choice the investors make now.

The only part this stops is the squeezing of salaries in order to pay dividends to stockholders (as the workers are now the stockholders), but there are less intrusive ways of doing that (such as a big capital gains tax).

On July 10 2019 01:52 Velr wrote:
If your worker owned company is doing great, what stopps the workers from selling it and buy a cheaper factory in a poorer place and live of the earnings of that company?

I guess you would say that wouldn't be allowed but what do you do then if a workforce decides to really profit of the work they did? Disallow them from ever invest/buy another company? So why even have money or ownership rights at that point?

I'm all for paying the average worker much more, companies like Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart and so on are a disgrace, but there has to be a better way than inserting some stately oversight with jnlimited power locking employes in their self iwned company forever. Simple rules about average worker pay would solve this much easier whiteout totally restructuring basically the whole economic and political system from the ground up.

On July 10 2019 02:03 Ryzel wrote:
OK, let's take two hypothetical examples of a thing-a-ma-jig business. This business creates thing-a-ma-jigs from base materials, and sells them to the market. Creating thing-a-ma-jigs requires skilled labor; employees require at least a couple years of specialized schooling and an apprenticeship of several months before getting an entry-level position.

In one, we have a worker-owned co-op-style business consisting of 50 employees; they all play a role in making the thing-a-ma-jigs and they all have equal say in decisions affecting the business, with the intent of maximizing profits of course. They are in agreement that each employee is vital to the process, and that each should receive the same share of the profits as any other. They're currently receiving $1000/month in profits, meaning each employee is receiving $20/month.

In the other, we have a capitalist-style business consisting of 1 CEO, 4 managers, and 45 employees. The CEO is in charge of all the decisions that affect the business, and his sole role is to do whatever it takes to ensure the business creates as much profit as possible. He has gone to school for this specifically. He delegates responsibilities to the managers, whose role is to both enforce and assist the 45 employees in following the CEO's vision of the business. The CEO has no idea how to make thing-a-ma-jigs, and the managers have some knowledge but are not experts. They are also receiving $1000/month in profits; the CEO takes a ridiculous share of $205/month, the managers each get $30/month, and the employees make $15/month.

First issue comes up for both businesses; profits are down for some reason and we need to figure out why. The co-op business has several employees that notice sales are down, and have some ideas as to why. The employees all have various levels of marketing and business experience, and have conflicting ideas as to how to solve the problem. Maybe 5-10 have had a bit of formal education/experience in the area of concern are in agreement on the correct course of action, but the other 35-40 have spent their lives making thing-a-ma-jigs and don't really know what to do. Some trust the 5-10, others go off their instinct, others don't like how the 5-10 are trying to assert themselves as “right” and resent their “superiority”. It takes some time, and in the end a compromise of sorts is reached where the correct solution is partially implemented and profits go back up a bit, but slightly. The business now is making $875/month in profit, and the employees are each making $17.50/month.

The CEO of the capitalist business identifies the problem quickly and reaches out to the right people to fix it. Profits bounce back to where they were before and everyone's wages remain unchanged.

Second issue: the contracted suppliers of the base materials for both businesses have suffered issues and are no longer able to deliver. The co-op business has several of its employees reach out to different suppliers and attempt to negotiate new deals. Unfortunately, there is more disagreement between the employees regarding what the rate should be for the base materials, as some have believed for a while that the rate with the previous suppliers was too high to begin with. Negotiations take a while since it takes so long to achieve consensus, and some potential suppliers get frustrated and drop out. Eventually they get a new deal, but its not as good as before and cuts into profits. They're now at $750/month, with employees each getting $15/month.

The CEO of the capitalist business quickly identifies new suppliers and begins negotiations. His training has led him to be a shrewd negotiator, and he ends up getting a slightly better deal than previously. Profits are now $1100/month; increasing the CEO's wage to $305/month (for a job well done of course).

Eventually, the two businesses begin competing directly in the same market. The capitalist business utilizes its greater revenue and decisiveness to implement strategies that direct sales away from the co-op business. The co-op business loses more profits, and worker morale begins to plummet. Eventually, the capitalist business buys out the co-op business, giving each employee a one-time decent chunk of change. However, the lack of competition lets the CEO feel safe reducing the wages of the employees a bit, since there's no more competition and nowhere for the employees to go. There's now one business making $2000/month, with 85 employees making $14/month, 10 managers making $30/month, and the CEO making a whopping $510/month.

And the CEO lived happily ever after.

...after going through with this thought experiment, it seems like the best thing to do would be for the workers themselves to hire CEOs/managers for their business, and they would require annual majority votes from the workers in order to keep their jobs. Basically if the workers/producers of value were the sole shareholders of their own business. It sucks financially though because the businesses have to cut into profits to keep the workers happy and get no extra investment from them. Making the public shareholders, on the other hand, will result in gobs of money being invested into you and you don't even have to give anything back (except dividends sometimes I guess). This basically means any company that makes workers shareholders will have less resources, and probably be less successful, then an otherwise equal company that makes the public shareholders.

On July 10 2019 02:12 KwarK wrote:

This entire thought experiment can be summarized as “Imagine two scenarios. One is better. Which one is better? Why, the better one of course. Therefore socialism is bad”. It’s not an argument, it’s just you telling us your preconceived conclusion through a story. If you reverse the numbers then the worker owned business succeeds.

On July 10 2019 02:12 KwarK wrote:
One of the more successful British grocery chains, Waitrose, is a worker owner cooperative but they still have managers and they still pay market rates for executives. They just also distribute profits to employees because the employees are the shareholders.

On July 10 2019 02:17 Ryzel wrote:


Why would the numbers be reversed? I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where a business run by 50 people of varying levels of business experience coming to a consensus, is more successful than a business run by 1 person who has nothing but business experience. By all means I'd love to be proved wrong, as I don't really like the idea of workers being screwed over.

On July 10 2019 02:21 Dan HH wrote:

You seem to be confusing socialism with the lack of a division of labour. You would still have an engineer doing engineering decisions under socialism rather than all workers having a vote on every individual's job.

On July 10 2019 02:17 Ryzel wrote:


Why would the numbers be reversed? I'm having trouble coming up with a scenario where a business run by 50 people of varying levels of business experience coming to a consensus, is more successful than a business run by 1 person who has nothing but business experience. By all means I'd love to be proved wrong, as I don't really like the idea of workers being screwed over.

EDIT -

I address this in my last paragraph. I assume this grocery chain has been established for quite some time and has lots of name recognition, probably not an awful lot of local big name competition. Do you think the company would be less profitable if they changed to a public shareholder dynamic instead? If so, why?

On July 10 2019 02:03 Nebuchad wrote:


As you expect it wouldn't be allowed, when the companies are owned by workers you can't "buy another company" like this, it wouldn't mean anything.

I don't advocate for state oversight but for workplace democracy. The workers directly own the means of production, they don't do it through state ownership. I'm not an anarchist, I do think having a state matters and is overall a good idea, but on this specifically I tend more towards anarchism than authoritarian forms of socialism.