4 ms·

Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit

Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit everywhere.

DiegoNolan 9y ago
They do own the results of their efforts. It is called their remuneration. If they want to own part of the company they can buy stock in it. It is public. No one is stopping anyone from working at a worker coop if they so desire.
patrickaljord 9y ago
> Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts Seriously? Haven't we learned anything from the 20th century and the deadly effects of collectivization? We're talking millions of death here.
nickik 9y ago
If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer works. The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.
- chroem- 9y ago
  The market will be irrational longer than you can stay solvent. You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    Modern-style companies have existed for a couple hundred years now. For some reason, co-ops (employee ownership) has had very limited success in that whole time, and across all free market countries. Could that reason be that it's a less effective method of providing value? In economics terms, I think what we have here is the tragedy of the commons - if all employees equally benefit from improving company's situation, what incentive I as an industrious and creative employee have to make the company better? - I'll do the hard work and will only reap a tiny fraction of the reward. Contrast that with an industrious and creative owner, who reaps a large part of the reward, and thus has a huge incentive to constantly improve his company. It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.
    - nickik 9y ago
      Worker owned does not mean everybody earns the same.
      - DiegoNolan 9y ago
        Congrats, you just invented the modern tech company.
        nickik 9y ago
        Modern tech companies are usually not worker owned, they give away stocks to investors.
    - baursak 9y ago
      > It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet. In existing and past "communist" economies the companies are NOT directly owned by people who work there. They are owned by the government who employs the workers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
      - taway_1212 9y ago
        The idea is that the people are the owners and the government is only managing the work.
        baursak 9y ago
        Which is not the same as direct ownership. It's similar to the dynamic of democracy at work in the US at federal level vs. local municipal level. If large-scale federal level democracy doesn't work too well, we're not immediately dismissing democracy outright, right?
- gech 9y ago
  The public bailed out the mistakes of the capital class in 2008, and will do so again
  - nickik 9y ago
    The bailed out 'the capital class'? That is total nonsense. They bailed out specific industry that have good political connections. That has abosolutly nothing to do with why worker owned coops don't succede in the market.
- Noseshine 9y ago
  I don't really mind what you say (don't care about the issue), but I do care when someone very confidently extends a trend into the future, here even into eternity, based on nothing but "it never worked before". That's just extreme intellectual laziness, which is fine, until you start commenting and pretend you know more than you do. There is way too little argument in your argument.
  - nickik 9y ago
    I said 'almost certainly' because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say. Plus we have theories of economics of the firm that analyses the problems with these sort of organsiations. So I feel reasonable confident saying 'almost certaint'.
    - Noseshine 9y ago
      > because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say I don't think you understand how history works. Don't know if this is merely risible or sad.

Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts , aka worker ownership we will see more and more of this shit everywhere.

DiegoNolan 9y ago

They do own the results of their efforts. It is called their remuneration. If they want to own part of the company they can buy stock in it. It is public. No one is stopping anyone from working at a worker coop if they so desire.

patrickaljord 9y ago

> Until the people who painstakingly build the stuff are allowed to own the results of their efforts Seriously? Haven't we learned anything from the 20th century and the deadly effects of collectivization? We're talking millions of death here.

nickik 9y ago

If worker ownership would produce superior outcomes it would prevail in the market. But in reality all practical experience shows that it does not. The old left excuse that workers are poor and can not start business can no longer works. The solution to the problems of the world has never been and will almost certainly never be worker ownership of the means of production.

chroem- 9y ago
The market will be irrational longer than you can stay solvent. You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  Modern-style companies have existed for a couple hundred years now. For some reason, co-ops (employee ownership) has had very limited success in that whole time, and across all free market countries. Could that reason be that it's a less effective method of providing value? In economics terms, I think what we have here is the tragedy of the commons - if all employees equally benefit from improving company's situation, what incentive I as an industrious and creative employee have to make the company better? - I'll do the hard work and will only reap a tiny fraction of the reward. Contrast that with an industrious and creative owner, who reaps a large part of the reward, and thus has a huge incentive to constantly improve his company. It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet.
  - nickik 9y ago
    Worker owned does not mean everybody earns the same.
    - DiegoNolan 9y ago
      Congrats, you just invented the modern tech company.
      - nickik 9y ago
        Modern tech companies are usually not worker owned, they give away stocks to investors.
  - baursak 9y ago
    > It is very visible in communist economies - the companies are owned by everyone so people care about them as much as they care about the pavement on the street or a public toilet. In existing and past "communist" economies the companies are NOT directly owned by people who work there. They are owned by the government who employs the workers. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
    - taway_1212 9y ago
      The idea is that the people are the owners and the government is only managing the work.
      - baursak 9y ago
        Which is not the same as direct ownership. It's similar to the dynamic of democracy at work in the US at federal level vs. local municipal level. If large-scale federal level democracy doesn't work too well, we're not immediately dismissing democracy outright, right?
gech 9y ago
The public bailed out the mistakes of the capital class in 2008, and will do so again
- nickik 9y ago
  The bailed out 'the capital class'? That is total nonsense. They bailed out specific industry that have good political connections. That has abosolutly nothing to do with why worker owned coops don't succede in the market.
Noseshine 9y ago
I don't really mind what you say (don't care about the issue), but I do care when someone very confidently extends a trend into the future, here even into eternity, based on nothing but "it never worked before". That's just extreme intellectual laziness, which is fine, until you start commenting and pretend you know more than you do. There is way too little argument in your argument.
- nickik 9y ago
  I said 'almost certainly' because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say. Plus we have theories of economics of the firm that analyses the problems with these sort of organsiations. So I feel reasonable confident saying 'almost certaint'.
  - Noseshine 9y ago
    > because after a 200 year trend that is a reasonable thing to say I don't think you understand how history works. Don't know if this is merely risible or sad.