Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[Money2Burn]

Proper,

In your system how are new businesses created? Who creates them? This isn't some sarcastic ploy by me, I thought about it and what reward does the person who came up with the idea get for starting a successful business? In these democratic businesses how do decisions about production and work hours get made? It seems like if everyone has a say nothing would ever get done especially if it was a large company.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I understand how worker ownership eliminates much management. Suppose Ford is worker owned. You still need managers and supervisors to coordinate and oversee the physical labor. Their intellectual services keep the firm afloat. The ownership workers will still certainly assign or elect supervisors and managers so that their business indeed will not fail. Their tasks are very "productive".

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not saying their will be no supervisors or managers in worker controlled firms, just significantly less than in capitalistic firms; right now most managers and supervisors spend much of their time just trying to make sure other people will be productive i.e. "make sure people are working hard/don't slack off etc." and disciplining those who do not.

If the wokers were the business owners, this function of management/supervision is rendered obsolete, because they will produce just because they get more $ if they produce, and workers won't allow their neighbor to slack off (because that hurts their pocketbook) hence their will be less managers and supervisors.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

If the wokers were the business owners, this function of management/supervision is rendered obsolete, because they will produce just because they get more $ if they produce, and workers won't allow their neighbor to slack off (because that hurts their pocketbook) hence their will be less managers and supervisors.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Talk about the ultimate economic insentive. If the company fails to produce many, high quality products, the workers themselves suffer. So obviously they'll work to their fullest, while at the same time self-policing other workers.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
In your system

[/ QUOTE ] It's not my system. If you read the whole post, I favor the capitalist system.

Their are many real world worker controlled/owned firms, and they have run into both the positives and negatives that I listed.

If you are interested in how they work, I suggest reading up on "Mondragon" and/or Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)(you'll probably get something good on the net if you do a google search for Mondragon). For SAIC, http://www.saic.com/about/history.html.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would it matter if the boy had a lawn to mow otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]
A lot. If he wouldn't have a lawn to mow if not for you, didn't you provide a value to him and thus entitled to some profit?
[ QUOTE ]
No, you're paying for convience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why isn't the kid you paid to mow the lawn for paying for convience? Let's say he was sitting in his basement smoking weed and I told him he could mow a lawn.
[ QUOTE ]
If you hired Real Estate Company A for 10% commission and they in turn contract Company B for 4% comission, and then Company B sells the home. Company A robs Company B of 6% comission.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why isn't company B paying for the convience of company A finding houses to sell?

[/ QUOTE ]
it's really disappointing to me that none of the resident marxists on the board are commenting on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's stopping the boy from dealing directly with man and mowing his lawn for the full gallon of milk. Lack of knowledge about the opprotunity, which is no excuse for exploitation. If the boy sought you out to find him lawns, then it's a different beast. The same argument applies for the real estate companies.


BTW, i'm not a marxist. I don't believe in centrally planned society. I'm a minarchist.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how it could be clearer. Your parents get rich off of the work that other people do.

[/ QUOTE ]

As others have pointed out you totally ignore half of the equaiton. All the workers who get paid for months to years for a business that ultimately fails. If they owned that business they would all starve as they don't have capital saved up. Are these employees exploiting their employer? Even more to the point the employees have gained skills and experience that makes them more valuable to other companies so when those businesses do go belly up they can move to the successful ones that still remain.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist offers the worker a deal: Take a smaller cut of the revenue up front, or risk your capital the way the entrepreneur is. Since the worker doesn't want to risk his capital, he takes the deal. No exploitation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If the wokers were the business owners, this function of management/supervision is rendered obsolete, because they will produce just because they get more $ if they produce, and workers won't allow their neighbor to slack off (because that hurts their pocketbook) hence their will be less managers and supervisors.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. Talk about the ultimate economic insentive. If the company fails to produce many, high quality products, the workers themselves suffer. So obviously they'll work to their fullest, while at the same time self-policing other workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a nice theoretical construct, but it has limited application in the real world. It is obviously true in, say, the formation of a new law firm. The business development abilities of the partners supported by a hardworking staff of wannabe partners will signifcantly impact the income of everyone.

When you try to generalize the model to a manufacturing business, though, the individual contribution of an owner/employee/shipping clerk doesnt impact the bottom line materially. Unless the shipping clerk is motivated to become the CEO (harkens back to the Smith's at GM) the natural tendency is to let the other guy pick up your slack, and the other shipping clerk has similar lack of incentive, and if both screw off without a manager to realize they are screwing off, a third shipping clerk will be hired, at negligible cost to the first two.

The incentives in employment ownership in a large manufacturing type environment are no different than the incentives provided by formula based profit sharing plans (x% contribution for achieving $Y of profits y% contribution for the next tier of profits and so on). they have shown to have little impact on a companies bottom line results.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
they have shown to have little impact on a companies bottom line results.

[/ QUOTE ] The problem with these results is that they don't seperate the positive effect (the one Dano is quoting) that I described from the negative one that I also described (risk aversion/lack of capital).

Study after study has shown that worker-ownership enhances productivity (profit sharing plans do as well). But, risk avoidance (as well as commitment to better working conditions; which is great for employees, but limits the firm's ability to compete with those who aren't using resources to improve them) tends to counteract the gains from enhanced worker productivity.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]


Study after study has shown that worker-ownership enhances productivity (profit sharing plans do as well).

[/ QUOTE ]


Perhaps I wasnt clear, but profit sharing plans have not been shown to enhance productivity in large company environments in the absence of a particpative management stye