Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist are, as the ACist like to say, holding a gun and saying: be exploited or starve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. There's no gun, real or figurative. Almost everyone must work in order to survive. Very, very few are in a position to never have to work a day in their lives. 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 ]

The worker most likely does not have the capital to risk in the first place, so that's not a choice. it's a catch-22.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for this; I thought I had pointed this out earlier.

[neverforgetlol]

the problem is, it's true he's not really holding a gun to the worker's head, but that doesn't mean it's A-OK either. if you were not born into money, or know people with money, you will not have capital to risk in the first place. so you can't really call it a choice, it's misleading.

this is one issue that may change my mind from a right-anarchist to a left. we'll see.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would think those assumptions are most valid in situations where you are least likely to have supervisors. All else equal, the marginal utility of your effort drops the larger the firm. Compare a 5 person law firm to a 3,000 person manufacturer. In the former, that extra effort is well worth it, in the latter, working yourself into a sweat to screw in 5 more bolts per hour is probably not. Your neighbor is in the same situation.

[/ QUOTE ] While I'm willing to go along with the idea that this effect is stronger the smaller the company...

I think, based on your language, you are ignoring the importance of principled behavior has in this area. A worker in a worker owned firm is far more likely to not "shirk" and is far more likely to report co-workers who do "out of principle"; in one case, the person not working is costing a millionaire or a bunch of wealthy stockholders she doesn't know money, in the other, she is costing her coworkers and herself money.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I fully understand that. Low-skilled workers commonly feel "exploited" by the corporation. Make them part owner, and some work harder if they believe their efforts are going to their peers, not a suit who they think trust-funded his way to the top. I just brought up the scale issue because you and Dano seemed to originally ignore that as a mitigating factor to the increased productivity claims. And based on that mitigation, you'll get plenty of "shirkers" who don't care one way or the other who gets the profits, and won't act any different. I think you still need most of those managers in a large employment setting, you can't be sure who will try to shirk if their work is not monitored.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What happens when the market for your product slows down for a period of time and, reguardless of how high quality the products and how many and how cheaply you produce them the business still loses money and the employees with it? Do you think these people will want to keep busting their asses for a loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, yeah companies never suffer a loss under a free market. Assuming they aren't covering their average variable costs, they obviously stop producing. But if they are covering their average variable costs, they will be better off staying open and producing at a loss than shutting down. I don't need to hijack this into a microecon lesson, so PM me if you don't understand. (I'm being serious. If you're interested, money2burn)

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no need for a lesson. I appreciate the offer though. What I am trying to get at is that in the free market one or few individuals bear the losses of the company while the employees keep getting their cut reguardless. Under the system you guys are talking about the employee/owners running the company more than likely won't have enough money saved up to keep operating through a down turn in the market. So shut down when you can't keep running profitably. When do you know to start back up and who gets all the workers back together?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist are, as the ACist like to say, holding a gun and saying: be exploited or starve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. There's no gun, real or figurative. Almost everyone must work in order to survive. Very, very few are in a position to never have to work a day in their lives. 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 ]

The worker most likely does not have the capital to risk in the first place, so that's not a choice. it's a catch-22.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how useful this is. True, most people aren't born with enough wealth to start their own companies, but not personally having all the wealth necessary to fully start a company hasn't stopped people in the past. The capitalist has no responsibility for the fact that nearly everyone has to work or starve. The capitalist offers a choice besides personal autarky.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is, it's true he's not really holding a gun to the worker's head, but that doesn't mean it's A-OK either. if you were not born into money, or know people with money, you will not have capital to risk in the first place. so you can't really call it a choice, it's misleading.

this is one issue that may change my mind from a right-anarchist to a left. we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone who owns a business started with money to begin with. Most of the successful ones busted their asses for years saving money finally, when they had enough they went out on their own. There are countless examples of people who have done this. I pointed to Hyzinga earlier, another offf the top of my head was Sam Walton.

Sure this isn't easy to accomplish, but who says that it's supposed to be? The only thing that matters is that it IS possible to those individuals who are willing to work and are smart and determined. Once again even if you have all these things you may not make it. Few things in are guarunteed in life and entrepranurial success certainly isn't one of them.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Under the system you guys are talking about the employee/owners running the company more than likely won't have enough money saved up to keep operating through a down turn in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
What prevents a worker, who is also a owner, from putting money away for hard times? I can't think of anything.
[ QUOTE ]

So shut down when you can't keep running profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]
But profit can be negative, keep in mind. Sometimes it makes sense to continue producing at a loss, since shutting down would incur more loss.
[ QUOTE ]

When do you know to start back up and who gets all the workers back together?

[/ QUOTE ]

When do you know this under a free market? Same principle applies. And it's not somehow criminal for a single person to say "hey, let's go back to the factory." I don't understand the dilemma there.

[Money2Burn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Under the system you guys are talking about the employee/owners running the company more than likely won't have enough money saved up to keep operating through a down turn in the market.

[/ QUOTE ]
What prevents a worker, who is also a owner, from putting money away for hard times? I can't think of anything.
[ QUOTE ]

So shut down when you can't keep running profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]
But profit can be negative, keep in mind. Sometimes it makes sense to continue producing at a loss, since shutting down would incur more loss.
[ QUOTE ]

When do you know to start back up and who gets all the workers back together?

[/ QUOTE ]

When do you know this under a free market? Same principle applies. And it's not somehow criminal for a single person to say "hey, let's go back to the factory." I don't understand the dilemma there.

[/ QUOTE ]

To your first point. You are right nothing prevents him from doing this. Similarly, nothing prevents an emloyee from saving up now in order to start a business in the future. The fact is that a LOT of people don't know how to save properly or won't for one reason or another. If all the employees bear the losses equally, when those time come they will be in serious trouble.

You are right, sometimes it does make sense to continue runnin at a loss, but try telling that to all those employee/owners who did not save for the hard times and need to find a job that will actually make them money so they can feed their families and pay their rent.

Right, again I agree with you, but with one or a few owners these decisions are much easier to make, when every employee has an equal voice it's going to be pretty hard to get everyone to agree that tough times are over and they whould opne up shop again.

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The capitalist are, as the ACist like to say, holding a gun and saying: be exploited or starve.

[/ QUOTE ]
Lol. There's no gun, real or figurative. Almost everyone must work in order to survive. Very, very few are in a position to never have to work a day in their lives. 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 ]

The worker most likely does not have the capital to risk in the first place, so that's not a choice. it's a catch-22.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure how useful this is. True, most people aren't born with enough wealth to start their own companies, but not personally having all the wealth necessary to fully start a company hasn't stopped people in the past. The capitalist has no responsibility for the fact that nearly everyone has to work or starve. The capitalist offers a choice besides personal autarky.

[/ QUOTE ]

how do i get the money to start a business without working a job under a capitalist in the first place? that's what i mean by catch-22.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the problem is, it's true he's not really holding a gun to the worker's head, but that doesn't mean it's A-OK either. if you were not born into money, or know people with money, you will not have capital to risk in the first place. so you can't really call it a choice, it's misleading.

this is one issue that may change my mind from a right-anarchist to a left. we'll see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone who owns a business started with money to begin with. Most of the successful ones busted their asses for years saving money finally, when they had enough they went out on their own. There are countless examples of people who have done this. I pointed to Hyzinga earlier, another offf the top of my head was Sam Walton.

Sure this isn't easy to accomplish, but who says that it's supposed to be? The only thing that matters is that it IS possible to those individuals who are willing to work and are smart and determined. Once again even if you have all these things you may not make it. Few things in are guarunteed in life and entrepranurial success certainly isn't one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

And how many people was that? Say I wanted to start my own business. First, who's going to give me a loan? Let's start there. The problem is you say it's a choice, but it isn't for most people, and for those who can it's not a guarantee of something anyway.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[

Not everyone who owns a business started with money to begin with. Most of the successful ones busted their asses for years saving money finally, when they had enough they went out on their own. There are countless examples of people who have done this. I pointed to Hyzinga earlier, another offf the top of my head was Sam Walton.



[/ QUOTE ]

In fact its far more common than someone starting with money and building something new and innovative with it. Thomas J Watson (IBM) and Hewlett/Packard are two other examples.