5 ms·

> A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the ma

by baursak 10y ago

> A company that expends great amount of money and resources on constant political shifting and backstabbing, and that can't present an unified vision on the market will soon get outcompeted by one that has its shit together. That already happens anyway. You don't need to have a democratically governed workplace for constant political shifting and backstabbing to occur. > If you want to leave or they fire you, you can generally find a new workplace. Which will also be non-democratically governed, so that doesn't work. > because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
>> because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. > Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree. Honestly, I think you could. Actually, this is something I was thinking about a lot in context of employee rights. Making workers happy - good office conditions, paid leaves, healthcare benefits, regular schedule, etc. - is a cost for a company, and creates inefficiencies that, if eliminated, would let the company do more while spending less[0]. So many companies are indeed happy to make employees as miserable as they can get away with[1]. Enforcing worker rights is purposefully introducing inefficiency, in order to avoid the market optimizing away all human values. So let me rephrase my original point: you can get away with much more efficiency in companies than in countries without making a lot of people miserable. -- [0] - subject to dynamics of market competition, in which all the gains you earn by introducing a change are quickly cancelled out when competitors follow suit. [1] - not a problem for companies that don't need specialized workers for which there's more demand that supply - i.e. not a problem for most companies and a huge problem for most people.
- gizmo 10y ago
  Interestingly, Thiel (of all people), has argued that companies in a monopoly position tend to treat their employees well, focus on fundamental research, and focus on delivering the best products for their customers. He argues that businesses with a thin profit margin can't afford to do any of that and so are more brutal and authoritarian and they can't afford the long term investments necessary for real innovation to take place.
- substack 10y ago
  Consider that in a private company, surpluses are paid out to executives and shareholders. How is that not "inefficient"? Meanwhile, workers are paid a subsistence wage of however low the company can get away with paying. In a worker-owned, worker-managed business, those surpluses could be spent on higher wages, lower prices, or increasing productivity. Without having to generate profits for investors and shareholders (who contribute no labor to the enterprise), wouldn't that make a firm much more "efficient"?

by baursak 10y ago

TeMPOraL 10y ago

>> because too much efficiency in a country will make many, many people very miserable. > Can't you make the same argument at organization level? I'm sure many Amazon warehouse workers would agree. Honestly, I think you could. Actually, this is something I was thinking about a lot in context of employee rights. Making workers happy - good office conditions, paid leaves, healthcare benefits, regular schedule, etc. - is a cost for a company, and creates inefficiencies that, if eliminated, would let the company do more while spending less[0]. So many companies are indeed happy to make employees as miserable as they can get away with[1]. Enforcing worker rights is purposefully introducing inefficiency, in order to avoid the market optimizing away all human values. So let me rephrase my original point: you can get away with much more efficiency in companies than in countries without making a lot of people miserable. -- [0] - subject to dynamics of market competition, in which all the gains you earn by introducing a change are quickly cancelled out when competitors follow suit. [1] - not a problem for companies that don't need specialized workers for which there's more demand that supply - i.e. not a problem for most companies and a huge problem for most people.

gizmo 10y ago
Interestingly, Thiel (of all people), has argued that companies in a monopoly position tend to treat their employees well, focus on fundamental research, and focus on delivering the best products for their customers. He argues that businesses with a thin profit margin can't afford to do any of that and so are more brutal and authoritarian and they can't afford the long term investments necessary for real innovation to take place.
substack 10y ago
Consider that in a private company, surpluses are paid out to executives and shareholders. How is that not "inefficient"? Meanwhile, workers are paid a subsistence wage of however low the company can get away with paying. In a worker-owned, worker-managed business, those surpluses could be spent on higher wages, lower prices, or increasing productivity. Without having to generate profits for investors and shareholders (who contribute no labor to the enterprise), wouldn't that make a firm much more "efficient"?