4 ms·

Because the goal of the system described above would be a more equitable distribution of economic gains (profits) and control - to avoid the concentration of we

Because the goal of the system described above would be a more equitable distribution of economic gains (profits) and control - to avoid the concentration of wealth and power that comes from letting equity (capital) own and control businesses. Concentration of power is corrupting and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of power. It harms society at large. On top of that, work is where most people spend most of their lives. Right now, most people work at businesses that are governed in an autocratic way. Which means, on a very practical level, we're asking most people to spend most of their lives operating in an autocratic context. With respect to Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships. There are some pretty big sole proprietorships and partnerships out there - with lots of employees. The bigger they get, the smaller the contribution of the sole owner or partners to the business vs the rest of the employees and the more the current system gives an unjust distribution of rewards. Sole proprietorships and partnerships wouldn't vanish entirely. They'd just be limited to businesses where the sole owner or partner really could do all the work (or most of it with some of it maybe contracted out to other cooperatives). It's true that the Free Market Socialist system described above probably would undervalue the contributions of founders. But the current system massively undervalues the contribution of the average worker. So it's a net gain in terms of justly and accurately valuing contributions. And Free Market Socialism would result in a much more even distribution of wealth, and therefor power. It wouldn't be perfect, but - personally - I think it would be an improvement.

yucky 4y ago
In your worker co-op utopia, when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? If not, wouldn't I just be an outside capitalist investor in my old company at that point? If yes, then am I bought out by the existing owners in an equitable manner? Or do new employees get my share of ownership? If they don't get my share of ownership, where does their share of ownership come from? Since companies will generally expand/contract at some point, how are ownership percentage changes handled there? I have so many questions, but this should get us started.
- dbingham 4y ago
  Note, it's not a utopia - just better, not perfect. It's a refactor. An iteration on the existing system. > when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? Open question. I think there are a couple of ways you could explore implementing this. One would be through ownership similar to what you describe. Workers would earn ownership over the course of their employment, when they want to move jobs the cooperative has to buy out their share (which would also enable retirement) at some agreed upon value. The cooperative would have to maintain capital reserves to cover this case. It doesn't really make sense for workers to take their share with them with out equity markets. They'd just be selling their equity back to the cooperative at a later date. Another approach would be to consider businesses as institutions to be governed, rather than property to be owned. In this case, no one owns the business. The workers govern it. There's no equity earned. It would be one worker one vote. In this case retirement would need to be handled either through pensions set aside, or more likely through national social security (which we already have). It's also possible that retirement could be handled through normal savings accounts. With out a stock market, financing would happen through traditional banks (as worker cooperatives), credit unions, or municipal banks and there would be much more incentive to pay real interest on savings accounts. In the former case, the earned equity overtime probably more accurately values workers contributions, and therefor also founder contributions. In the later case, the system is simpler, more egalitarian, and less prone to manipulation by founders looking to retain authoritarian power as long as possible. Important to note, I think there are existing worker cooperatives experimenting with both implementations (and probably additional ones as well), so if we're interested in seeing the effects of each approach (and possible unintended consequences) it would be worth studying what they're doing. If I ever manage to save up enough to take a multi-year sabbatical I want to write a book on the topic and do that research.
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Another approach would be to consider businesses as institutions to be governed, rather than property to be owned. In this case, no one owns the business. This is probably the quickest way possible to ensure no new businesses are created, ever. There would be no incentive, and if the government has proven anything it's that it is the least efficient institution ever created. > The cooperative would have to maintain capital reserves to cover this case. The math on this doesn't work. > I think there are existing worker cooperatives experimenting with both implementations Indeed, and now we know why they're not significant enterprises in any way.

yucky 4y ago

In your worker co-op utopia, when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? If not, wouldn't I just be an outside capitalist investor in my old company at that point? If yes, then am I bought out by the existing owners in an equitable manner? Or do new employees get my share of ownership? If they don't get my share of ownership, where does their share of ownership come from? Since companies will generally expand/contract at some point, how are ownership percentage changes handled there? I have so many questions, but this should get us started.

dbingham 4y ago
Note, it's not a utopia - just better, not perfect. It's a refactor. An iteration on the existing system. > when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? Open question. I think there are a couple of ways you could explore implementing this. One would be through ownership similar to what you describe. Workers would earn ownership over the course of their employment, when they want to move jobs the cooperative has to buy out their share (which would also enable retirement) at some agreed upon value. The cooperative would have to maintain capital reserves to cover this case. It doesn't really make sense for workers to take their share with them with out equity markets. They'd just be selling their equity back to the cooperative at a later date. Another approach would be to consider businesses as institutions to be governed, rather than property to be owned. In this case, no one owns the business. The workers govern it. There's no equity earned. It would be one worker one vote. In this case retirement would need to be handled either through pensions set aside, or more likely through national social security (which we already have). It's also possible that retirement could be handled through normal savings accounts. With out a stock market, financing would happen through traditional banks (as worker cooperatives), credit unions, or municipal banks and there would be much more incentive to pay real interest on savings accounts. In the former case, the earned equity overtime probably more accurately values workers contributions, and therefor also founder contributions. In the later case, the system is simpler, more egalitarian, and less prone to manipulation by founders looking to retain authoritarian power as long as possible. Important to note, I think there are existing worker cooperatives experimenting with both implementations (and probably additional ones as well), so if we're interested in seeing the effects of each approach (and possible unintended consequences) it would be worth studying what they're doing. If I ever manage to save up enough to take a multi-year sabbatical I want to write a book on the topic and do that research.
- yucky 4y ago
  > Another approach would be to consider businesses as institutions to be governed, rather than property to be owned. In this case, no one owns the business. This is probably the quickest way possible to ensure no new businesses are created, ever. There would be no incentive, and if the government has proven anything it's that it is the least efficient institution ever created. > The cooperative would have to maintain capital reserves to cover this case. The math on this doesn't work. > I think there are existing worker cooperatives experimenting with both implementations Indeed, and now we know why they're not significant enterprises in any way.