4 ms·

Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legi

by sershe 6y ago

Well, in that case there should be legislation for "minimum participation" akin to minimum wage, restricting property rights of the owners. There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. That answers the question in the present. As for the changes; the co-op structure already exists, so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops. As is, myself (and most people I expect) would rather have more money than more participation, in fact the poorer people would probably be the first to trade participation for money if they could. In the US, they can go either way at least in theory (the reason there are not that many co-ops is probably because few want more participation at the cost of money). In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair. The "political activism" was literally to remove restrictions to give people more options and/or to make people more aware of rules and less beholden to some unjustified ancient custom.

pron 6y ago
> There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. Activism and ownership are two separate things. Activism is about changing existing laws, rules and customs. There isn't any law specifically allowing executives to engage in activism (meant to change or prevent the change of existing legislation), and yet they do, and on a much larger scale than employees. Google spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying. > so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops This is not true, because a better outcome for a more co-determined company is not necessarily a higher stock price. Forming companies requires raising capital, and so investors have a lot of power in deciding the structure of companies we see, and what they care about is the stock price. For example, if traditional private companies and co-ops fail or succeed at the same rate but private companies are funded 100:1 compared to co-ops, you'd see 100x more private companies than co-ops. There is generally no reason to believe that pure market forces direct us to a "good outcome" at the needed pace. You could have said that if the abolition of slavery leads to a better outcome, then the market would have quickly made it disappear; but in the US the market didn't. The redistribution of wealth over the last few decades in the US, and the West in general, away from workers is certainly not a good outcome. > In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair. In America it is the same, only the model is different. It doesn't matter if the limiting power originates in the state or in other institutions. Despite little central regulation, feudalism or America in the Gilded Age was more, not less, restrictive on more people than under the regulation of the modern welfare state.

by sershe 6y ago

pron 6y ago

> There's no such legislation, which I think is a great thing, so that is the reason employees cannot expect to be activists at work. Activism and ownership are two separate things. Activism is about changing existing laws, rules and customs. There isn't any law specifically allowing executives to engage in activism (meant to change or prevent the change of existing legislation), and yet they do, and on a much larger scale than employees. Google spends millions of dollars each year on lobbying. > so if it actually resulted in better outcomes you'd expect more co-ops This is not true, because a better outcome for a more co-determined company is not necessarily a higher stock price. Forming companies requires raising capital, and so investors have a lot of power in deciding the structure of companies we see, and what they care about is the stock price. For example, if traditional private companies and co-ops fail or succeed at the same rate but private companies are funded 100:1 compared to co-ops, you'd see 100x more private companies than co-ops. There is generally no reason to believe that pure market forces direct us to a "good outcome" at the needed pace. You could have said that if the abolition of slavery leads to a better outcome, then the market would have quickly made it disappear; but in the US the market didn't. The redistribution of wealth over the last few decades in the US, and the West in general, away from workers is certainly not a good outcome. > In Europe, you are forced into a particular model. I view that as unfair. In America it is the same, only the model is different. It doesn't matter if the limiting power originates in the state or in other institutions. Despite little central regulation, feudalism or America in the Gilded Age was more, not less, restrictive on more people than under the regulation of the modern welfare state.