3 ms·
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
by nickik 10y 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- 10y agoThe market will be irrational longer than you can stay solvent. You are putting far too much trust into speculative market forces.
- taway_1212 10y agoModern-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 10y agoWorker owned does not mean everybody earns the same.
- DiegoNolan 10y agoCongrats, you just invented the modern tech company.
- nickik 10y agoModern tech companies are usually not worker owned, they give away stocks to investors.
- baursak 10y 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 10y agoThe idea is that the people are the owners and the government is only managing the work.
- baursak 10y agoWhich 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 10y agoThe public bailed out the mistakes of the capital class in 2008, and will do so again
- nickik 10y agoThe 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 10y agoI 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 10y agoI 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 10y 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.