5 ms·

> Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being barked down. If you disobey, you're out. People in Western dem

> Modern corporations are run like totalitarian, authoritarian regimes with top-down orders being barked down. If you disobey, you're out. People in Western democracies are no longer putting up with non-democratic control of their political institutions, but are completely oblivious to non-democratic control of their economic institutions and are perfectly willing to take orders where and when it matters most -- every day, 9 to 5. This sounds strikingly socialist. As a small business owner, the one who took the risk to start it, invested my own savings, and put things together so I could coordinate selling products with paying employees, you're damn right it's my regime. If I didn't think it would be mine, I never would have started it. The future rewards would be non-existent, relevant to being a cog somewhere else. And my customers would never get the added value of what I make from the business I never would have started. Instead of having increased ownership, autonomy, and earnings potential, I have to negotiate and play politics with other people who I know aren't as intrinsically motivated as myself? Forget it, that's entirely unrealistic. Think about what you're saying - this is not how value, wealth, and prosperity is created. Nobody is going to vote me out of being CEO, because if that were possible I wouldn't have put in the tough work (and created the value) that goes along with being a CEO. And the capitalist system works fine, because if these employees think I'm doing a shit job, they do have a vote: leave and start their own company. The parts that don't work are actually the more socialist parts of the system, such as bailouts for big behemoth, and regulatory barriers to starting competitors. Sorry pal, but surface-level idealism doesn't square with real-life incentives and rewards. What I'm in favor for is reducing regulations and other burdens so that you or any employees in general have the option of starting their own companies and competing with me. That's a much better way for them to "take" the value of my shares, rather than just voting it to themselves with no work done.

gizmo 10y ago
It sounds socialist because it is textbook socialism. Your assertion that value, wealth, and prosperity are created through the hard work and sacrifice by business owners is of course disputed by socialists. You're begging the question here. If you stipulate that value in society is created by the very process that socialists want to dismantle, then of course being a socialist is irrational. No real conversation can be had when you define socialism to be irrational from the outset. Further evidence that no real conversation can be had follows from your dismissive "sorry pal, surface-level idealism" remark. Why are you so snide and dismissive? Do you think it helps your credibility? (It doesn't.) Socialists argue that value is created by all working people, most of whom are not in it for the profit incentive. Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. By PhD students, who get paid poorly. By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. And there are no snide answers to this question that are remotely satisfying.
- zxcvvcxz 10y ago
  If I'm dismissive it's because we've had a lot of field tests of socialism throughout history, as well as in economic studies, and the results are always poor. It's a dangerous mindset to not examine critically because it is a slippery slope towards communism, the most inhumane type of society responsible for the most deaths in human history (much more than religion). > Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. Many teachers (pre-college) are essentially babysitters who recite state-certified textbooks. This not value in itself, but it does free the parents to work to create value. Value is also created by the students who go on to create exceptional things. Some are inspired by good teachers, yes, but this seems to be the exception than the norm. > By PhD students, who get paid poorly. Apprentices in older times got paid poorly too, but many went on to create value who wouldn't have otherwise without the extensive training. It's an investment. You don't get paid well while in training because you're still an unknown quantity for the most part. > By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. The purpose of capturing value is to be able to start a family and pass on your genetics (for most people). And those who raise their children well often do get compensated later in life, if not with direct support, than with higher probabilities that their children will be successful and continue passing on their shared genes. > By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. You don't get compensted for effort, you get compensated for value. You can dig a ditch with a spoon for a lot of effort, guess what, it's not valuable. > If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. As I showed above, hard work a.k.a effort is not, and should not, be a determining factor of one's wealth. Many people work hard but are using "spoons" so to speak. This doesn't create value. Planning the logistics of a digging operation (tool equipment rental, worker recruiting and scheduling, end customer sales, planning real estate builds, etc) creates value, even if it means I only plan these things for a few months then sit back while other people do the digging. Now not everyone can do that simultaneously. For one, not everyone is smart enough to do higher-level planning. Intelligence is rewarded economically, and we see this with IQ-income correlations. Secondly, even if everyone were the same intelligence level, we can't have everyone be a planner/developer and nobody be a digger (or excavator operator). But then guess what happens, the worker class becomes rare and so the free market will start paying it much better as demand increases. If physical labour becomes scarce, that's what gets paid more. Because we can fight neither the reality of scarcity driving value, nor the reality of greedy human nature, we ought to design systems whereby these forces can be put towards good. That's what capitalism does, and there's many examples of everyone being better off as a result (e.g. 600M+ Chinese people eating a lot better in the last few decades). Finally, to emphasize human nature again, none of the examples you listed are exclusively for the "good of society". Being a teacher is a job with decent pay and good vacation, being a PhD student is an investment towards your future (earnings), being a parent and raising children well is how you pass on and secure your genetic lineage, and work is for economic survival, and eventually gives one the power to pass on their genes.
baursak 10y ago
Yes, as a small business owner, it's a tougher concept to come to terms with. You can try looking at it from different perspectives though. For one, I'm sure a 12th century monarch or a lord would have a host of reasons why you're damn right it's my regime. Or a modern-day King Saud for that matter I guess. After all, it's his father who built his kingdom, and he has all the risks and responsibilities of a monarch. But for most Western observers, that is no longer defensible and most would elect to live somewhere with a democratic government. Same goes to modern day dictatorships like North Korea. If not for international borders and internal controls, most North Koreans would probably prefer to leave their country. So, to continue the analogy, one could imagine a day in the future where as a small business owner, you are no longer able to attract any employees on the terms you're used to now -- not unless they are not employees, but co-workers with all equal rights and votes. And just as it's unimaginable and laughable in modern America for someone to start claiming that he's now a lord of XYZ county, and all those living within it are his peasants, it's not too hard to imagine a similar reaction to your proposal of employment for wages. You can also look at it from another angle. Why exactly is it that you want to have your own totalitarian regime within the organization you started? Is it just because you enjoy the power over people? Most people wouldn't say so. Besides, if you are the founder and know the business better than anyone, and have good leadership qualities, why wouldn't you be constantly re-elected as CEO? And if your coworkers indeed approve of you as CEO, you would still get your greater earnings potential, although without being able to exploit your workers as much.
- zxcvvcxz 10y ago
  > Same goes to modern day dictatorships like North Korea. If not for international borders and internal controls, most North Koreans would probably prefer to leave their country. So, to continue the analogy, one could imagine a day in the future where as a small business owner, you are no longer able to attract any employees on the terms you're used to now -- not unless they are not employees, but co-workers with all equal rights and votes. Again, I welcome whatever reality the free market thrusts upon me, and will react and adapt accordingly. However this is incredibly far from reality because people actually like being employees. You don't have nearly as much risk. You don't have to make tough executive decisions with far-reaching consequences. Your levels of stress are lower. Etc. Those things are worth $$$, and we price them by CEO/founder compensation. It's not going to be perfect pricing, but it's the best we've got. > Why exactly is it that you want to have your own totalitarian regime within the organization you started? Because I believe that my decision making and skills with regards to a particular type of business in a particular type of market will yield me big returns, and so I want to put my money where my mouth is. Hence I saved up and founded my business. > Besides, if you are the founder and know the business better than anyone, and have good leadership qualities, why wouldn't you be constantly re-elected as CEO? Injecting this type of politics into a company is a fantastic way of slowing it to a crawl. Even if it's possible that one of my employees could be "better" than me at my job, we're not practically going to find out ("let's all try each other's job for a month!"). Or rather, it's not my responsibility to ask them -- if they think so they're free to go start their own company/competitor (subject to whatever non-compete clauses they may have signed, which you could argue is burdensome regulation, and I might be inclined to agree). Besides, who says elections give us the best candidate? ;) Unlike the North Korea example, the employees really do have options here. At least ideally they have as much choice as possible for who to work for, remember it's not like I put a gun to anyone's head when I asked them to join (or stay). A counterexample might be the H1-B's that are tied to their employer, but I don't have that particular relationship with any of my employees. > And if your coworkers indeed approve of you as CEO, you would still get your greater earnings potential, although without being able to exploit your workers as much. Just to wrap up, as I said above it's not worth the time for me to "poll" everyone. There are serious business consequences to injecting such a high level of politics into a company. What keeps me from exploiting my workers primarily are competitors, with competing potential offers, and the flow of information on the internet, e.g. 'this type of engineer makes X a year'.
kmicklas 10y ago
> And the capitalist system works fine, because if these employees think I'm doing a shit job, they do have a vote: leave and start their own company. I didn't know it was this possible to be so non self aware. > The parts that don't work are actually the more socialist parts of the system, such as bailouts for big behemoth, and regulatory barriers to starting competitors. Socialism is when the government does things, and the more things it does, the socialister it is!
- grzm 10y ago
  I didn't know it was this possible to be so non self aware. No matter how ignorant you may think another poster is, it's never okay on HN to be uncivil. Particularly with contentious topics, it's even more important to raise to level of civility to ensure constructive discussion.
  - kmicklas 10y ago
    This isn't uncivil. This is pointing out that OP's statement is factually ignorant of the economic possibilities for 99% of the population.
    - grzm 10y ago
      If you believe the poster is missing important facts, and you're willing to take the time to do so, let them know what it is you think they're missing in a constructive, non-combative manner. Claiming someone is heretofore unimaginably non self-aware is a direct personal insult, which is never appropriate on HN. Please contribute substantively and civilly, or refrain from doing so.
    - zxcvvcxz 10y ago
      Yes please add some substance to your criticism. There is nothing wrong with criticism of ideas and I welcome it for my own. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I live and work in North America where GDP per capita is something like $54K USD or more. This context makes a difference for your "99%" comment.
- 10y ago

gizmo 10y ago

It sounds socialist because it is textbook socialism. Your assertion that value, wealth, and prosperity are created through the hard work and sacrifice by business owners is of course disputed by socialists. You're begging the question here. If you stipulate that value in society is created by the very process that socialists want to dismantle, then of course being a socialist is irrational. No real conversation can be had when you define socialism to be irrational from the outset. Further evidence that no real conversation can be had follows from your dismissive "sorry pal, surface-level idealism" remark. Why are you so snide and dismissive? Do you think it helps your credibility? (It doesn't.) Socialists argue that value is created by all working people, most of whom are not in it for the profit incentive. Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. By PhD students, who get paid poorly. By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. And there are no snide answers to this question that are remotely satisfying.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago
If I'm dismissive it's because we've had a lot of field tests of socialism throughout history, as well as in economic studies, and the results are always poor. It's a dangerous mindset to not examine critically because it is a slippery slope towards communism, the most inhumane type of society responsible for the most deaths in human history (much more than religion). > Value in society is created by teachers, whom get paid poorly. Many teachers (pre-college) are essentially babysitters who recite state-certified textbooks. This not value in itself, but it does free the parents to work to create value. Value is also created by the students who go on to create exceptional things. Some are inspired by good teachers, yes, but this seems to be the exception than the norm. > By PhD students, who get paid poorly. Apprentices in older times got paid poorly too, but many went on to create value who wouldn't have otherwise without the extensive training. It's an investment. You don't get paid well while in training because you're still an unknown quantity for the most part. > By parents who raise their children well for no compensation at all. The purpose of capturing value is to be able to start a family and pass on your genetics (for most people). And those who raise their children well often do get compensated later in life, if not with direct support, than with higher probabilities that their children will be successful and continue passing on their shared genes. > By all the millions of people who get to work every day and don't get compensated handsomely for the effort. You don't get compensted for effort, you get compensated for value. You can dig a ditch with a spoon for a lot of effort, guess what, it's not valuable. > If there are so many people willing to work hard and sacrifice for the good of society without any chance of striking it rich, why should business owners be the exception? That's the fundamental question socialists ask. As I showed above, hard work a.k.a effort is not, and should not, be a determining factor of one's wealth. Many people work hard but are using "spoons" so to speak. This doesn't create value. Planning the logistics of a digging operation (tool equipment rental, worker recruiting and scheduling, end customer sales, planning real estate builds, etc) creates value, even if it means I only plan these things for a few months then sit back while other people do the digging. Now not everyone can do that simultaneously. For one, not everyone is smart enough to do higher-level planning. Intelligence is rewarded economically, and we see this with IQ-income correlations. Secondly, even if everyone were the same intelligence level, we can't have everyone be a planner/developer and nobody be a digger (or excavator operator). But then guess what happens, the worker class becomes rare and so the free market will start paying it much better as demand increases. If physical labour becomes scarce, that's what gets paid more. Because we can fight neither the reality of scarcity driving value, nor the reality of greedy human nature, we ought to design systems whereby these forces can be put towards good. That's what capitalism does, and there's many examples of everyone being better off as a result (e.g. 600M+ Chinese people eating a lot better in the last few decades). Finally, to emphasize human nature again, none of the examples you listed are exclusively for the "good of society". Being a teacher is a job with decent pay and good vacation, being a PhD student is an investment towards your future (earnings), being a parent and raising children well is how you pass on and secure your genetic lineage, and work is for economic survival, and eventually gives one the power to pass on their genes.

baursak 10y ago

Yes, as a small business owner, it's a tougher concept to come to terms with. You can try looking at it from different perspectives though. For one, I'm sure a 12th century monarch or a lord would have a host of reasons why you're damn right it's my regime. Or a modern-day King Saud for that matter I guess. After all, it's his father who built his kingdom, and he has all the risks and responsibilities of a monarch. But for most Western observers, that is no longer defensible and most would elect to live somewhere with a democratic government. Same goes to modern day dictatorships like North Korea. If not for international borders and internal controls, most North Koreans would probably prefer to leave their country. So, to continue the analogy, one could imagine a day in the future where as a small business owner, you are no longer able to attract any employees on the terms you're used to now -- not unless they are not employees, but co-workers with all equal rights and votes. And just as it's unimaginable and laughable in modern America for someone to start claiming that he's now a lord of XYZ county, and all those living within it are his peasants, it's not too hard to imagine a similar reaction to your proposal of employment for wages. You can also look at it from another angle. Why exactly is it that you want to have your own totalitarian regime within the organization you started? Is it just because you enjoy the power over people? Most people wouldn't say so. Besides, if you are the founder and know the business better than anyone, and have good leadership qualities, why wouldn't you be constantly re-elected as CEO? And if your coworkers indeed approve of you as CEO, you would still get your greater earnings potential, although without being able to exploit your workers as much.

zxcvvcxz 10y ago
> Same goes to modern day dictatorships like North Korea. If not for international borders and internal controls, most North Koreans would probably prefer to leave their country. So, to continue the analogy, one could imagine a day in the future where as a small business owner, you are no longer able to attract any employees on the terms you're used to now -- not unless they are not employees, but co-workers with all equal rights and votes. Again, I welcome whatever reality the free market thrusts upon me, and will react and adapt accordingly. However this is incredibly far from reality because people actually like being employees. You don't have nearly as much risk. You don't have to make tough executive decisions with far-reaching consequences. Your levels of stress are lower. Etc. Those things are worth $$$, and we price them by CEO/founder compensation. It's not going to be perfect pricing, but it's the best we've got. > Why exactly is it that you want to have your own totalitarian regime within the organization you started? Because I believe that my decision making and skills with regards to a particular type of business in a particular type of market will yield me big returns, and so I want to put my money where my mouth is. Hence I saved up and founded my business. > Besides, if you are the founder and know the business better than anyone, and have good leadership qualities, why wouldn't you be constantly re-elected as CEO? Injecting this type of politics into a company is a fantastic way of slowing it to a crawl. Even if it's possible that one of my employees could be "better" than me at my job, we're not practically going to find out ("let's all try each other's job for a month!"). Or rather, it's not my responsibility to ask them -- if they think so they're free to go start their own company/competitor (subject to whatever non-compete clauses they may have signed, which you could argue is burdensome regulation, and I might be inclined to agree). Besides, who says elections give us the best candidate? ;) Unlike the North Korea example, the employees really do have options here. At least ideally they have as much choice as possible for who to work for, remember it's not like I put a gun to anyone's head when I asked them to join (or stay). A counterexample might be the H1-B's that are tied to their employer, but I don't have that particular relationship with any of my employees. > And if your coworkers indeed approve of you as CEO, you would still get your greater earnings potential, although without being able to exploit your workers as much. Just to wrap up, as I said above it's not worth the time for me to "poll" everyone. There are serious business consequences to injecting such a high level of politics into a company. What keeps me from exploiting my workers primarily are competitors, with competing potential offers, and the flow of information on the internet, e.g. 'this type of engineer makes X a year'.

kmicklas 10y ago

> And the capitalist system works fine, because if these employees think I'm doing a shit job, they do have a vote: leave and start their own company. I didn't know it was this possible to be so non self aware. > The parts that don't work are actually the more socialist parts of the system, such as bailouts for big behemoth, and regulatory barriers to starting competitors. Socialism is when the government does things, and the more things it does, the socialister it is!

grzm 10y ago
I didn't know it was this possible to be so non self aware. No matter how ignorant you may think another poster is, it's never okay on HN to be uncivil. Particularly with contentious topics, it's even more important to raise to level of civility to ensure constructive discussion.
- kmicklas 10y ago
  This isn't uncivil. This is pointing out that OP's statement is factually ignorant of the economic possibilities for 99% of the population.
  - grzm 10y ago
    If you believe the poster is missing important facts, and you're willing to take the time to do so, let them know what it is you think they're missing in a constructive, non-combative manner. Claiming someone is heretofore unimaginably non self-aware is a direct personal insult, which is never appropriate on HN. Please contribute substantively and civilly, or refrain from doing so.
  - zxcvvcxz 10y ago
    Yes please add some substance to your criticism. There is nothing wrong with criticism of ideas and I welcome it for my own. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I live and work in North America where GDP per capita is something like $54K USD or more. This context makes a difference for your "99%" comment.
10y ago