4 ms·

Employees wages are not made by "inflating the costs of what's being sold" it is though their labor. A piece of steel does not get sold as a screwdriver unless

by camdat 5y ago

Employees wages are not made by "inflating the costs of what's being sold" it is though their labor. A piece of steel does not get sold as a screwdriver unless someone's labor has been applied to it. Labor is inherently what provides use-value to a good. In the service sector this holds equally true. The only person whose earnings are made through inflating the costs of whats being sold is the owner. Hence the "stolen" marginal value of the underlying good. Co-ops give all of their earnings to those that labored to improve the use-value of the product. Should be relatively easy to prove that no ownership is the best and only alternative, if you can provide a argument against no ownership.

cweagans 5y ago
You're making a huge assumption that the owner is not also providing labor. In some cases this may be true, but I would imagine that it's the exception rather than the rule. For instance, I can be a freelancer and have to handle client interactions, billing, taxes, etc. in addition to the technical work that I perform; OR I can go work for somebody else and just focus on the technical work and make approximately the same amount (which is to say that the person for whom I'm performing the technical work is handling the other non-technical work that I don't want to have to care about).
- camdat 5y ago
  Sure an owner can also work in the business, the skimming of marginal labor is what makes them the owner in contrast to the worker. Your example is absolutely possible in a co-op too, the only difference is you would be making the full value of your labor less expenses, not the amount of that that your boss thinks you deserve.
codegeek 5y ago
Some arguments against "no ownership" : - Are you willing to get sued on behalf of the company ? owners do. - Are you willing to share all the downsides of running a company ? Owners do. - Are you willing to be the person where the bucks stop with ? Owners do. - Are you willing to do things that a regular employee cannot or will not (e.g. working 80 hour weeks) ? owners do. - Are you willing to not just quit because things are tough ? As an employee, you can quit and tell the company to f off. As an owner, it is not that simple. You cannot get out that easy even if you want to. I am not necessarily saying that CEOs who exploit workers are great but this idea that everyone is equal in a company is just not practically possible. People are not equal. That is a fact. Some people just want a paycheck and get the f out. Why should they get the extra upsides that owners risk ?
- camdat 5y ago
  Some of these arguments don't actually exist in reality, others aren't really problems. > Are you willing to get sued on behalf of the company ? LLCs exist for a reason, liability is just as easy to determine for a co-op as a dictatorship. > Are you willing to share all the downsides of running a company ? These downsides would be shared equally across more people. If anything, co-ops reduce this problem by not hedging the entire company on the decisions of a single person. Do we argue that kings are superior to democracy because they can be hung when something goes bad? > Are you willing to be the person where the bucks stop with ? See above. This is not an argument for ownership just as it isn't an argument for monarchy. "The buck stops here" isn't a legally binding contract, and plenty of owners are happy to pass the buck to someone under them. > Are you willing to do things that a regular employee cannot or will not (e.g. working 80 hour weeks) ? Wage theft is the #1 form of theft in America. It seems that even owners are not willing to do things employees do. > Are you willing to not just quit because things are tough ? As an employee, you can quit and tell the company to f off. As an owner, it is not that simple. You cannot get out that easy even if you want to. Can an owner not sell their share of the company whenever they choose too? Companies, and fractions thereof, are bought and sold all the time. Regardless, most co-ops are not literally owned by their constituents, but rather are incorporated with the sum value of their earnings being split across the workers in the co-op. No different than most small businesses, except decisions are democratically made, rather than handed down.

by camdat 5y ago

cweagans 5y ago

You're making a huge assumption that the owner is not also providing labor. In some cases this may be true, but I would imagine that it's the exception rather than the rule. For instance, I can be a freelancer and have to handle client interactions, billing, taxes, etc. in addition to the technical work that I perform; OR I can go work for somebody else and just focus on the technical work and make approximately the same amount (which is to say that the person for whom I'm performing the technical work is handling the other non-technical work that I don't want to have to care about).

camdat 5y ago
Sure an owner can also work in the business, the skimming of marginal labor is what makes them the owner in contrast to the worker. Your example is absolutely possible in a co-op too, the only difference is you would be making the full value of your labor less expenses, not the amount of that that your boss thinks you deserve.

codegeek 5y ago

Some arguments against "no ownership" : - Are you willing to get sued on behalf of the company ? owners do. - Are you willing to share all the downsides of running a company ? Owners do. - Are you willing to be the person where the bucks stop with ? Owners do. - Are you willing to do things that a regular employee cannot or will not (e.g. working 80 hour weeks) ? owners do. - Are you willing to not just quit because things are tough ? As an employee, you can quit and tell the company to f off. As an owner, it is not that simple. You cannot get out that easy even if you want to. I am not necessarily saying that CEOs who exploit workers are great but this idea that everyone is equal in a company is just not practically possible. People are not equal. That is a fact. Some people just want a paycheck and get the f out. Why should they get the extra upsides that owners risk ?

camdat 5y ago
Some of these arguments don't actually exist in reality, others aren't really problems. > Are you willing to get sued on behalf of the company ? LLCs exist for a reason, liability is just as easy to determine for a co-op as a dictatorship. > Are you willing to share all the downsides of running a company ? These downsides would be shared equally across more people. If anything, co-ops reduce this problem by not hedging the entire company on the decisions of a single person. Do we argue that kings are superior to democracy because they can be hung when something goes bad? > Are you willing to be the person where the bucks stop with ? See above. This is not an argument for ownership just as it isn't an argument for monarchy. "The buck stops here" isn't a legally binding contract, and plenty of owners are happy to pass the buck to someone under them. > Are you willing to do things that a regular employee cannot or will not (e.g. working 80 hour weeks) ? Wage theft is the #1 form of theft in America. It seems that even owners are not willing to do things employees do. > Are you willing to not just quit because things are tough ? As an employee, you can quit and tell the company to f off. As an owner, it is not that simple. You cannot get out that easy even if you want to. Can an owner not sell their share of the company whenever they choose too? Companies, and fractions thereof, are bought and sold all the time. Regardless, most co-ops are not literally owned by their constituents, but rather are incorporated with the sum value of their earnings being split across the workers in the co-op. No different than most small businesses, except decisions are democratically made, rather than handed down.