3 ms·

How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of

by yucky 4y ago

How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? I have so many more questions..

abdullahkhalids 4y ago
I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books. > Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary. > If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least. Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.
- yucky 4y ago
  Do all employees have the same ownership (i.e. 1 share each or 100 shares each or whatever) regardless of position? Or do those with more specialized knowledge or skills have a larger share of ownership? If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control? If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    Those are great questions, and I don't think all answers exist or if there is any base level of agreement between major anarcho-syndicalists. At least I don't know them. Note that there are distinctions between the base salary someone is paid, the share of the profits they get (on top of the salary), and their voting rights. So people with specialized skillsets would likely get extra compensated in salary, maybe in some profits. Otherwise, they can switch to some other firm that compensates them better. Note that the only thing that is being banned is for capital to wholly own the profits emerging from the labor of others. Most other features of the market economy will continue to exist. I don't expect any society that implements an anarcho-syndicalism to be free of "human" problems. Firms will continue to have drama, and politics, and likely people will band together to screw over other bands of people in the same or other firms. These are not visions of a utopia. The attempt is only to create an economic system that has significantly less fundamental problems than existing capitalism. Sorry, I don't have better answers.

by yucky 4y ago

abdullahkhalids 4y ago

I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books. > Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary. > If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least. Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.

yucky 4y ago
Do all employees have the same ownership (i.e. 1 share each or 100 shares each or whatever) regardless of position? Or do those with more specialized knowledge or skills have a larger share of ownership? If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control? If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  Those are great questions, and I don't think all answers exist or if there is any base level of agreement between major anarcho-syndicalists. At least I don't know them. Note that there are distinctions between the base salary someone is paid, the share of the profits they get (on top of the salary), and their voting rights. So people with specialized skillsets would likely get extra compensated in salary, maybe in some profits. Otherwise, they can switch to some other firm that compensates them better. Note that the only thing that is being banned is for capital to wholly own the profits emerging from the labor of others. Most other features of the market economy will continue to exist. I don't expect any society that implements an anarcho-syndicalism to be free of "human" problems. Firms will continue to have drama, and politics, and likely people will band together to screw over other bands of people in the same or other firms. These are not visions of a utopia. The attempt is only to create an economic system that has significantly less fundamental problems than existing capitalism. Sorry, I don't have better answers.