4 ms·

An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive. Why should a worker have control over a corporation that

An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive. Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people? I’m a vendor and I vote with my feet.

kerkeslager 4y ago
> An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive. True, but irrelevant. > Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people? Why should those other people be rewarded if they aren't contributing anything? I thought capitalism was about rewarding contributions? To be clear, buying up all the means of production and withholding it from society unless they pay you rent isn't a contribution to society. It's creating artificial scarcity.
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail. I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
  - kerkeslager 4y ago
    > Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail. Ah yes, as if investing your time and building a life dependent on income that can be taken away at any time isn't a risk. I have no problem with people being compensated for lending, but stocks are like a loan with no endpoint, where you can just refuse to let the person pay you back and demand them pay you interest forever. At some point, you have to admit that the initial risk has been compensated and shareholders are no longer contributing. > I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership. "Don't outperform" is a nice way of rephrasing the fact that they don't underperform either, which is what you would expect if worker ownership was really a problem.
    - erik_seaberg 4y ago
      If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share. Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns. Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
      - kerkeslager 4y ago
        > If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share. Yes, I know. I'm saying that stocks are a tool that allows people to continue leeching off society far beyond the point where they've been fairly rewarded for their initial contributions. > Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns. That's a pretty large generalization which is incorrect in many cases. Bond terms and risk levels can vary quite wildly. > Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie. Compensates and otherwise treats its workers fairly. It's worth noting that not all incentives are monetary.

kerkeslager 4y ago

> An auto mechanic may or may not agree to fix my car, but he never gets any say over where I may drive. True, but irrelevant. > Why should a worker have control over a corporation that belongs to other people? Why should those other people be rewarded if they aren't contributing anything? I thought capitalism was about rewarding contributions? To be clear, buying up all the means of production and withholding it from society unless they pay you rent isn't a contribution to society. It's creating artificial scarcity.

erik_seaberg 4y ago
Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail. I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  > Factories aren’t cheap and they don’t age well. Datacenters probably go obsolete even faster. Someone had to put a lot of money at risk in return for uncertain future profits, and it wasn’t me. I can walk away with all the paychecks I banked whether they succeed or fail. Ah yes, as if investing your time and building a life dependent on income that can be taken away at any time isn't a risk. I have no problem with people being compensated for lending, but stocks are like a loan with no endpoint, where you can just refuse to let the person pay you back and demand them pay you interest forever. At some point, you have to admit that the initial risk has been compensated and shareholders are no longer contributing. > I think this is why worker-owned co-ops don’t outperform; ideologically they over-index on sweat equity and are reluctant to pay the market price for the capital they need from outside their own membership. "Don't outperform" is a nice way of rephrasing the fact that they don't underperform either, which is what you would expect if worker ownership was really a problem.
  - erik_seaberg 4y ago
    If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share. Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns. Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie.
    - kerkeslager 4y ago
      > If I agree to an upper limit on profit after which I have no ownership, I’m buying a bond or note rather than a share. Yes, I know. I'm saying that stocks are a tool that allows people to continue leeching off society far beyond the point where they've been fairly rewarded for their initial contributions. > Bond investors want low risks and expect to be paid back reliably on schedule or you could be forced into bankruptcy. It’s a bad fit for a startup facing a lot of unknowns. That's a pretty large generalization which is incorrect in many cases. Bond terms and risk levels can vary quite wildly. > Does a co-op do anything more effectively to make up for limited access to capital? It sounds like dividing a smaller pie. Compensates and otherwise treats its workers fairly. It's worth noting that not all incentives are monetary.