4 ms·

The company doesn't exist to make money for it's employees.

spoonjim 5y ago
And the employee doesn’t exist to make money for their employer’s shareholders, and this entire article shows how employees can capture some of that money if they work in solidarity.
- gruez 5y ago
  >And the employee doesn’t exist to make money for their employer’s shareholders which is why the employer pays the employee for their service. >this entire article shows how employees can capture some of that money if they work in solidarity. creating a cartel is one way to strengthen your bargaining position.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    Yes. Denmark shows the power of the worker’s cartel. It’s smart business tactics, the kind that the employer would praise in their own management.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
moomin 5y ago
That's an excellent argument in favour of radical unionization.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
IneffablePigeon 5y ago
Perhaps it, or some larger subset of companies, should? Co-operative style employee ownership is one way of achieving something along those lines.
- liaukovv 5y ago
  This creates inverted incentives: to take as much from the pot as possible while putting in as little as possible. Same reason as why such communal systems never work if they get much larger than one family.
  - content_sesh 5y ago
    Inverted by whose standards? You could just as convincingly argue that capitalist enterprises are the ones with inverted incentives: to extract as much value from workers as possible while paying them as little as possible.
    - liaukovv 5y ago
      In the communal system it is in the best interest of each agent to work against other agents. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
      - mrguyorama 5y ago
        That doesn't actually change in a traditional capitalist system. The only difference is that owners and upper classes have more power than the individual to make their interest of getting the whole pot for little work happen
        liaukovv 5y ago
        In capitalist system owner can enforce cooperation so the pot itself grows. The proportion that workers capture here is of course dependant on external factors, like labour market and laws.
- gruez 5y ago
  that works great until you need to raise capital. You either need to do loans (unsuitable for early stage companies due to risk and capped upside for investor) or issue equity which brings us back to square one.

And the employee doesn’t exist to make money for their employer’s shareholders, and this entire article shows how employees can capture some of that money if they work in solidarity.

gruez 5y ago
>And the employee doesn’t exist to make money for their employer’s shareholders which is why the employer pays the employee for their service. >this entire article shows how employees can capture some of that money if they work in solidarity. creating a cartel is one way to strengthen your bargaining position.
- spoonjim 5y ago
  Yes. Denmark shows the power of the worker’s cartel. It’s smart business tactics, the kind that the employer would praise in their own management.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

moomin 5y ago

That's an excellent argument in favour of radical unionization.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

IneffablePigeon 5y ago

Perhaps it, or some larger subset of companies, should? Co-operative style employee ownership is one way of achieving something along those lines.

liaukovv 5y ago
This creates inverted incentives: to take as much from the pot as possible while putting in as little as possible. Same reason as why such communal systems never work if they get much larger than one family.
- content_sesh 5y ago
  Inverted by whose standards? You could just as convincingly argue that capitalist enterprises are the ones with inverted incentives: to extract as much value from workers as possible while paying them as little as possible.
  - liaukovv 5y ago
    In the communal system it is in the best interest of each agent to work against other agents. Tragedy of the commons and all that.
    - mrguyorama 5y ago
      That doesn't actually change in a traditional capitalist system. The only difference is that owners and upper classes have more power than the individual to make their interest of getting the whole pot for little work happen
      - liaukovv 5y ago
        In capitalist system owner can enforce cooperation so the pot itself grows. The proportion that workers capture here is of course dependant on external factors, like labour market and laws.
gruez 5y ago
that works great until you need to raise capital. You either need to do loans (unsuitable for early stage companies due to risk and capped upside for investor) or issue equity which brings us back to square one.