4 ms·
The traditional view is that "The workers control the means of production". Suppose you built a successful small company but, suddenly, every employee quit at
by edent 4y ago
The traditional view is that "The workers control the means of production".
Suppose you built a successful small company but, suddenly, every employee quit at once. Could your business carry on the next day? Could it survive until you hired and trained replacements?
If the answer is "no" then you have made the case that employees both deserve to share in the business's success and will probably be incentivised by co-owning the company.
Does the janitor deserve as much of the profits as the CTO? Well, what premium do you put on your other employees not getting sick, or injuring themselves?
(Wasn't there a case where a Google chef made a fortune from stocks? Much to the chagrin of some?)
The opposite argument is that those who risk capital are the only ones who deserve the reward. Without investment, a company can't launch or grow. Workers are an operational cost - they are paid for labour and no more deserving of reward than the electricity company. Both provide a service but neither takes a risk.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoNeither view will do. The company can't succeed without the workers. The company also can't succeed without capital. Both deserve to get a cut of the rewards.
- edent 4y agoExactly.
- runarberg 4y agoThis neglects the reality that loans exist. In an ideal leftist world your local credit union redistributes wealth by collecting pepole’s savings from the community and hands them out as loans for slightly higher interest rate. That interest rate is the “cut” of the rewards. If an enterprise goes bankrupt and is unable to pay back the loan, there is usually some kind of insurance the credit union has to prevent going under with it.
- goatlover 4y agoThat sounds like a world in which everyone ends up worse off. Maybe it’s more equal, but I value standard of living and opportunity more than equal outcomes.
- nec4b 4y agoCan you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?
- edent 4y agoI would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value. Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades. I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.
- nec4b 4y agoAnd if the house depreciates, should the carpenter then help him with the mortgage payments?
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y agoCould you make the argument that the carpenter should be given the option to be paid in equity or in cash, if both parties agree to it? Is there any argument against giving people the option to choose the sort of compensation risk profile that works best for their individual situation?
- slowmovintarget 4y agoNo. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work. He's not entitled to additional value the recipient of the work may or may not get from him completing the job, unless he negotiates that up front. It seems likely that no one in their right mind would agree to pay the carpenter profit sharing for every transaction that may occur from that building. They'd find another carpenter.
- runarberg 4y agoThis is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoIn most cases, they do co-own the company, through stock and options grants. Particularly so for the early employees who are not replaceable. At Google's scale, everyone is replaceable, including Jeff Dean, Sundar Pichai, and everyone else who you think is "instrumental."
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y agoI imagine the steelman version of the argument here is: yes, they do own part of the company, that portion of upside and control is so minuscule that it's almost insignificant. And thus we're back to needing unions to advocating on behalf of workers so that they get to own a bigger slice of the pie.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoThat's the traditional Marxist view. It is not the traditional view.