4 ms·

I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. They are the means of production. Witness the com

I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. They are the means of production. Witness the comedy of the failing business where 10 middle managers have endless meetings about what the last remaining builder should build.

dasil003 10y ago
Only a union can actually coalesce all that agency into an actual decision that affects production though. Otherwise the individuals who opt out are just statistical noise on the spreadsheet.
TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
When you've got a family to feed, limited savings, and are unable to form a union due to union-busting policies & at-will employment, workers can't gain the leverage needed to do this. And in a global economy where jobs can be shipped anywhere, businesses can't allow this kind of behavior. A board of directors exists to maximize profits, not build a stable society. What should happen is that the government should step in to force companies to both create profits and create an equal society, but the problem in the US is that our government has been bought out.
- noonespecial 10y ago
  And this is where I turn right around and advocate a UBI. The problem is that labor is not a free enough market. A giant clot of tiny worker friendly regs is one answer. I think a UBI and something reasonable for health care is better. Losing all your best workers because you create a place no one wants to work at is the best possible outcome for corporate doucheyness.
  - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
    I'd also argue that protectionism would work as well. In the 50s and 60s before jobs were shipped overseas, unions were powerful enough to make a large, powerful middle class that led to a very strong economy. These unions were able to persist because the demand for labor was high enough. With globalization(and illegal immigration, but it's mostly globalization), the demand for labor has tanked, giving the worker very little leverage. I agree that socialism would be the better way to do this, but I'm not sure if our political system would ever allow it to happen.
    - noonespecial 10y ago
      Unions tend to create their own distortions. The first thing they do when they achieve power is go right about manipulating the political environment to ensure that no one is able to work in their field without joining and paying the union. Empowering the individual is the answer. Not trading one master for another. Even if the new master double-pinky-swears he's gonna be better than the old one.
      - cookiecaper 10y ago
        A UBI makes the government itself that master. Everyone will be dependent on the payouts, and it will create a new baseline which will be consumed immediately. Pricing is relative. This will move the goal posts without making anyone functionally wealthier (except the fund's administrators, same as the union bosses always find ways to enrich themselves). Individuals must be empowered by keeping the markets not only open, but gaping. The government's actions should always open up competition. A great way to get started effecting this would be a liberalization of intellectual property law (trim the lifetime of copyrights to 5 years and patents to 7 years, for example, while also seriously weakening the extent of the monopolies they grant). Another way would be a modernization of the courts, to ensure that little people can have their concerns addressed speedily and at minimal cost. Cartels and monopolies should be aggressively disrupted (ideally through indirect action, though direct is not out of the realm of possibility), and market distorters like health insurers should be excised quickly.
        TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        Your argument against UBI is similar to the argument against raising minimum wage, saying that any gains will instantly lost due to inflation. The problem with this is that it is false[1]. Also, inflation adjusted, minimum wage was actually higher in the 60s, meaning the lower class had greater purchasing power. I see no reason why this would differ with UBI. [1] https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-minimum-wage-it-will-cause-inflation-c0db32f579f8 https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-...
        10y ago
harrumph 10y ago
>I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. But that's not governance of an enterprise, that's quitting -- a commitment that also very likely mars one's own work record, especially in this business-run society. >They are the means of production. Unless the employees govern the company, the first person to disagree with your statement is going to be the boss. >Witness the comedy of the failing business where 10 middle managers have endless meetings about what the last remaining builder should build. I'd say the above is not limited whatsoever to failing businesses. The bigger the business/institution, the more likely this over-administrated, top- and middle-heavy shitshow is to be standard operating procedure.
coldtea 10y ago
>I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. Only if they can organize, and don't have debts, mortgages, kids, limited job options and other such issues... Which means for most of people it's a "gun in the head" kind of situation more than a decision. At best they can get off of one deal and into another, but they can't stall very much or be too picky and still feed themselves.
st3v3r 10y ago
I would disagree hugely, as the working people still need to buy food and pay rent.

dasil003 10y ago

Only a union can actually coalesce all that agency into an actual decision that affects production though. Otherwise the individuals who opt out are just statistical noise on the spreadsheet.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

When you've got a family to feed, limited savings, and are unable to form a union due to union-busting policies & at-will employment, workers can't gain the leverage needed to do this. And in a global economy where jobs can be shipped anywhere, businesses can't allow this kind of behavior. A board of directors exists to maximize profits, not build a stable society. What should happen is that the government should step in to force companies to both create profits and create an equal society, but the problem in the US is that our government has been bought out.

noonespecial 10y ago
And this is where I turn right around and advocate a UBI. The problem is that labor is not a free enough market. A giant clot of tiny worker friendly regs is one answer. I think a UBI and something reasonable for health care is better. Losing all your best workers because you create a place no one wants to work at is the best possible outcome for corporate doucheyness.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
  I'd also argue that protectionism would work as well. In the 50s and 60s before jobs were shipped overseas, unions were powerful enough to make a large, powerful middle class that led to a very strong economy. These unions were able to persist because the demand for labor was high enough. With globalization(and illegal immigration, but it's mostly globalization), the demand for labor has tanked, giving the worker very little leverage. I agree that socialism would be the better way to do this, but I'm not sure if our political system would ever allow it to happen.
  - noonespecial 10y ago
    Unions tend to create their own distortions. The first thing they do when they achieve power is go right about manipulating the political environment to ensure that no one is able to work in their field without joining and paying the union. Empowering the individual is the answer. Not trading one master for another. Even if the new master double-pinky-swears he's gonna be better than the old one.
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      A UBI makes the government itself that master. Everyone will be dependent on the payouts, and it will create a new baseline which will be consumed immediately. Pricing is relative. This will move the goal posts without making anyone functionally wealthier (except the fund's administrators, same as the union bosses always find ways to enrich themselves). Individuals must be empowered by keeping the markets not only open, but gaping. The government's actions should always open up competition. A great way to get started effecting this would be a liberalization of intellectual property law (trim the lifetime of copyrights to 5 years and patents to 7 years, for example, while also seriously weakening the extent of the monopolies they grant). Another way would be a modernization of the courts, to ensure that little people can have their concerns addressed speedily and at minimal cost. Cartels and monopolies should be aggressively disrupted (ideally through indirect action, though direct is not out of the realm of possibility), and market distorters like health insurers should be excised quickly.
      - TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
        Your argument against UBI is similar to the argument against raising minimum wage, saying that any gains will instantly lost due to inflation. The problem with this is that it is false[1]. Also, inflation adjusted, minimum wage was actually higher in the 60s, meaning the lower class had greater purchasing power. I see no reason why this would differ with UBI. [1] https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-minimum-wage-it-will-cause-inflation-c0db32f579f8 https://medium.com/@discomfiting/debunking-if-you-raise-the-...
      - 10y ago

harrumph 10y ago

>I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. But that's not governance of an enterprise, that's quitting -- a commitment that also very likely mars one's own work record, especially in this business-run society. >They are the means of production. Unless the employees govern the company, the first person to disagree with your statement is going to be the boss. >Witness the comedy of the failing business where 10 middle managers have endless meetings about what the last remaining builder should build. I'd say the above is not limited whatsoever to failing businesses. The bigger the business/institution, the more likely this over-administrated, top- and middle-heavy shitshow is to be standard operating procedure.

coldtea 10y ago

>I'd argue that the working people make the ultimate governance decision. Whether or not to come in tomorrow. Only if they can organize, and don't have debts, mortgages, kids, limited job options and other such issues... Which means for most of people it's a "gun in the head" kind of situation more than a decision. At best they can get off of one deal and into another, but they can't stall very much or be too picky and still feed themselves.

st3v3r 10y ago

I would disagree hugely, as the working people still need to buy food and pay rent.