It’s a meme

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Better to have them making the decision than capitalists, who make more money for paying employees less

    Also who says half of them have to be fired? Can’t everyone just work less?

    • @Devouring
      link
      -21 year ago

      “Better” is in your opinion. I need answers based on concerns and problems that happens in the real world. A fast-paced world.

      Assuming the revenue of the company doesn’t have massive growth (which is the normal situation unless a breakthrough happened), we need to hire more people who have the skills needed to keep up with the market. So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

      • J Lou
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Worker coops are better ethically not just based on opinion. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. By the usual ethical principle that legal responsibility should be assigned to the de facto responsible party, the workers should jointly be legally responsible for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs.

        1. Worker coops can fire people.
        2. Worker coops can charge initial membership fee when a new worker joins.
        • @Devouring
          link
          01 year ago

          OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren’t important. This idea that people can’t be fired is just ridiculous.

          Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

          • J Lou
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            I never said that people couldn’t get fired.

            The incompetent relative example seems to be a problem with nepotism

            • @Devouring
              link
              11 year ago

              Agreed. It’s a nepotism problem. I’m just drawing the picture that removing money from the picture basically makes relationships the new currency. It’s basically how life used to be a long time ago, and those who were closer to the leader got better jobs with perks. People will always find a way to benefit and will centralize power eventually. I can’t say much about hypotheticals and whether your coop will fix that, but in my opinion, history suggests that we’ll just end up with a new system of power.

              • J Lou
                link
                fedilink
                1
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I never said anything about removing money.

                What you are talking about is called social capital accumulation, which is a problem in any system.

                A justification for worker coops is the moral principle of assigning legal responsibility to the de facto responsible party. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer receives 100% of the legal responsibility despite the employee being inextricably co-responsible. This violates the aforementioned principle

                • @Devouring
                  link
                  21 year ago

                  Well, I don’t think you can use written laws to fight human plans to centralize power. I guess our current system is proof of that. People will always find a way to centralize that power to benefit themselves and their groups.

                  But anyway. I guess we’re getting into a dead end. This is becoming opinion stuff at this point, whether this will work. I’ll have to think more about this stuff.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        See you’re still trapped within the logic of capitalism which maximizes profits and expansion over other concerns.

        So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

        These are all massive assumptions

        • @Devouring
          link
          01 year ago

          Sorry but you’re evading my questions.

          That’s OK. I’m not looking to “win” here. Just think about what I said, and next time you have this discussion, have good answers. Maybe you’ll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in. Not that things can’t be improve or that we’re drowning in corruption. But that’s another topic for another day. Have a good one.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -31 year ago

            Maybe you’ll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in.

            This from the person who is spouting econ 101 nonsense.

            • @Devouring
              link
              01 year ago

              You haven’t presented a valid argument. 2+2 is simple, but it works. When someone says the 2+2=10^50, and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

              Take a step back and evaluate your ego.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                -3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Unfortunately in the case of econ 101, you are taught that 2+2=5 most modern econ is neoclassical, which means operating on pre-marx economics and just ignoring marxist critiques of the political economy.

                and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I’ll ask them to justify.

                Thats a mighty strawman you invented. Workers are going to do the bare minimum to not get fired when it literally doesn’t matter how much they work, their income will be the same. When workers are invested in an organization, they do more work.

                • @Devouring
                  link
                  01 year ago

                  Either answer my questions, or go away. This conversation is over.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    -3
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Your only question is “what am I missing” and the answer is an economics education.

                    But to address your “concerns” you’re operating on the mindset of maximizing profit to compete against other firms maximizing profit, which is only a problem under capitalism (until you reach the monopoly stage)