U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-14-2018, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069

Advertisements

As you can see, cooperative ecosystems are spreading everywhere.
https://nextcity.org/features/view/w...n-philadelphia

Last edited by Winterfall8324; 10-14-2018 at 06:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2018, 06:21 PM
 
440 posts, read 199,686 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
My question was do executives deserve the output of the workers. The question wasn't a moral one, but a technical one. If the workers are producing the output, they should naturally control what happens to it.

There is no direct obligation but that should be the effect when demand is what forms supply (demand of the community). Sadly when you have corporate run businesses, they don't care what the people need, they formulate demand through marketing, product placement, monopolization of the supply chain/market place, and state intervention. When production is completed in excess, why should there be those that require something who should not receive it? In our private controlled state backed economy, we have a higher housing vacancy than we have a homeless population, the reason why is that exploitation is the basis of all trade in a personal profit driven economy with executives possessing more power than they operate with.

With respect, your analogy is not reflective of anything that I said, a car is your own personal property as you operate under it while production centers are cooperatively managed means that produce a good/service for the wider community.
Are you referring to an executive that is also an employee of a company or an executive that is an owner of the company?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1921 View Post
Are you referring to an executive that is also an employee of a company or an executive that is an owner of the company?
Both
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 06:57 PM
 
440 posts, read 199,686 times
Reputation: 459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Both
I am assuming you have never served as an executive. Huge difference. Let’s start with an executive that is not an owner.

This type of executive is also a worker and does not have the power to direct the “output”. In this situation, the executive is working within the confines of systems, policies, objectives and budgets that are controlled/approved by a Board of Directors and/or owners. The executive executes within these confines.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 07:57 PM
 
9,317 posts, read 7,324,406 times
Reputation: 22807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
My question was do executives deserve the output of the workers. The question wasn't a moral one, but a technical one. If the workers are producing the output, they should naturally control what happens to it.
Deserving anything isn't applicable. Do you understand the nature of an agreement or contract? Executives/owners request labor from the employee in exchange for the agreed upon wages. Those are the terms of the agreement.

The workers never even requested to control any output from the corporation. If the workers want to control the output, they have to have that agreement in place. Hence a co-op.

Seriously, why are you ignoring the co-op when that business structure addresses your concerns. It's being done in real companies. https://www.kingarthurflour.com/our-...yee-owned.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
With respect, your analogy is not reflective of anything that I said, a car is your own personal property as you operate under it while production centers are cooperatively managed means that produce a good/service for the wider community.
No. Production centers are OWNED by the owners. The good/services belong to whomever the owners dictate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 08:08 PM
 
6,836 posts, read 2,646,406 times
Reputation: 18428
I didn't read through all 14 pages of this, so maybe someone mentioned this before, but Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream started with this theory that the highest paid employee should receive (what was it, 2X, 3X?) some small multiplier of the smallest paid employee. Um, that didn't work. As they grew, it became apparent that they needed to pay higher up execs more than 2X or 3X the wage they paid 16 year olds who scooped ice cream in their stores.

Ya get what ya pay for, Winterfall. In the free market, if you can pay a CEO 30K who will do as great a job as a CEO you pay 400K, they'd do that in a heartbeat. The truth is, you can't. Or that's who they would hire.

(Unlike trade unions, and that's a different story, and they are not a part of the free market economy. When a trade union is involved, you are forced to pay them a non free market price for their labor).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal View Post
Deserving anything isn't applicable. Do you understand the nature of an agreement or contract? Executives/owners request labor from the employee in exchange for the agreed upon wages. Those are the terms of the agreement.

The workers never even requested to control any output from the corporation. If the workers want to control the output, they have to have that agreement in place. Hence a co-op.

Seriously, why are you ignoring the co-op when that business structure addresses your concerns. It's being done in real companies. https://www.kingarthurflour.com/our-...yee-owned.html


No. Production centers are OWNED by the owners. The good/services belong to whomever the owners dictate.
Agreements made in a capitalist environment are done within the context of exploitation. When all the major capital is owned by the private for profit industry, workers have no choice but to labor through these institutions. As the choices are so limited, and corporate control is authoritarian across the board, these same workers lose freedom of input.

No single man or even a group of shareholders should have the legal rights to ownership of capital they donít operate under. Conversely without state enforcement, these same shareholders would not have the power to control the operations of said company.

And I know about worker cooperatives, but if you want a self sustaining system where labor is not seen as a commodity and production is not handled for self profit of a few, you need ownership to exist under operation and for companies to be run democratically.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
6,398 posts, read 1,760,233 times
Reputation: 2069
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC View Post
I didn't read through all 14 pages of this, so maybe someone mentioned this before, but Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream started with this theory that the highest paid employee should receive (what was it, 2X, 3X?) some small multiplier of the smallest paid employee. Um, that didn't work. As they grew, it became apparent that they needed to pay higher up execs more than 2X or 3X the wage they paid 16 year olds who scooped ice cream in their stores.

Ya get what ya pay for, Winterfall. In the free market, if you can pay a CEO 30K who will do as great a job as a CEO you pay 400K, they'd do that in a heartbeat. The truth is, you can't. Or that's who they would hire.

(Unlike trade unions, and that's a different story, and they are not a part of the free market economy. When a trade union is involved, you are forced to pay them a non free market price for their labor).
Managers only make sure production is profitable for shareholders, that’s it. In such a system labor is seen as a commodity and the costumer base (demand) is created, not served.

In a real free society production would be based on mutual aid, but even now the managers shouldn’t get paid a dime if they don’t help production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 09:26 PM
 
5,238 posts, read 1,573,835 times
Reputation: 5036
What the OP fails to understand is that when you sell your labor, that's it...that is the entire transaction. Your paycheck is your compensation. You do not magically own the "output" of the corporation. You AGREED, voluntarily, to sell your labor for money.

If you want a different arrangement, like a share in the business, then there are agreements you could make instead. You could invest in the company (and many public companies provide a means for employees to do that through withholdings, and match the contributions made by the employee). You could work for equity, instead of for cash, if you like.

But when employees CHOOSE to sell their labor, that is a simple transaction and it doesn't entitle the worker to anything but the agreed upon payment for the amount of time worked.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2018, 09:32 PM
 
9,317 posts, read 7,324,406 times
Reputation: 22807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Agreements made in a capitalist environment are done within the context of exploitation. When all the major capital is owned by the private for profit industry, workers have no choice but to labor through these institutions. As the choices are so limited, and corporate control is authoritarian across the board, these same workers lose freedom of input.

No single man or even a group of shareholders should have the legal rights to ownership of capital they donít operate under. Conversely without state enforcement, these same shareholders would not have the power to control the operations of said company.

And I know about worker cooperatives, but if you want a self sustaining system where labor is not seen as a commodity and production is not handled for self profit of a few, you need ownership to exist under operation and for companies to be run democratically.
Dude, that's a bunch of delusional BS. Exploitation? Are you saying people don't have the free will to enter into agreements of their own choosing?

As to your last sentence, why can't labor be a commodity? What if I choose to sell my labor for wages? Who are YOU to take that choice away from me? Why can't production be for self profit? If you created an invention, don't you have the right to profit from your idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top