4 ms·

Worker co-ops and ESOPs are already available as business structures. If they’re better, they will be more common, it’s as simple as that. Mandating employee ow

by dools 2y ago

Worker co-ops and ESOPs are already available as business structures. If they’re better, they will be more common, it’s as simple as that. Mandating employee ownership is ridiculous. In terms of policy I think a cap on revenue per employee for a privately held company and a cap on individual ownership is a better solution to reducing income inequality. That and eliminating involuntary unemployment so that companies have to compete with a guaranteed job that is not exploitative. Let the private sector figure out the details within those boundary conditions, that’s what it’s there for.

hurril 2y ago
What is gained by preventing the company from accepting more money than your revenue cap? It would be bad for everyone. What are you trying to optimise?
- dools 2y ago
  They can have more revenue than the cap I’m just saying they should be publicly listed.
  - chii 2y ago
    what makes public listing a good criteria for which the revenue cap be removed? in fact, i dont get the rationale for revenue caps at all. It doesn't produce less inequality, and only produces inefficiencies.
    - dools 2y ago
      Cap on revenue per employee for a company before it must be publicly listed so that a cap on ownership percentage can be more simply enforced.
  - hurril 2y ago
    Oh, misunderstood. You still need to think about what it is you wish to optimise for. I am not a regulation hater but naive regulations tend to cause rather than mitigate pathological economic incentives. It is very very hard to get these kinds of things right. Another thing, one related to your original post: it is, of course, good imho to have a working hand-out system so that you don't starve when you are out of a job, or are forced to have to work for really shitty conditions. This causes another problem, however. It is very easy to get dependant on these hand-outs because the difference in pay between the jobs you are able to do and the size of the hand-out can be very small. Even negative. We have (had) this problem in Sweden for a long time. And it is a problem because when people are less poor, then things cost more money because of it. Cynical, I know. Economics is very very hard.
    - dools 2y ago
      I’m optimising for concentration of ownership. So if you allow a privately held company to get too valuable it’s harder to enforce against concentration of ownership, much easier to do with a publicly traded company IMHO. In relation to your concerns about a job guarantee they’re all addressed in writing, in particular by Pavlina Tcherneva who has done the most comprehensive work on the subject along with Bill Mitchell and Randall Wray. It should be noted that I disagree with Bill Mitchell on some political issues but his JG work is rock solid.
eru 2y ago
> That and eliminating involuntary unemployment so that companies have to compete with a guaranteed job that is not exploitative. You don't need to have job guarantees for that. A strong economy in general helps for this, and a basic income would also help.
- dools 2y ago
  A strong economy helps certainly but a JG eliminates involuntary unemployment, provides a basic income, ensures price stability and sets the minimum work standard the private sector must exceed in order to hire. If you’re waving a magic wand anyway why not choose the best policy?
  - eru 2y ago
    See https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic...
    - dools 2y ago
      I looked at the first 2 subheadings and they’re already off base. Whoever wrote that article has read nothing that’s been written about job guarantees by the actual economists who specialise in it. There are already too many clear and well rounded refutations of the UBI bingo card talking points to count, there’s no point in my spilling pixels here to go over them again.
t-writescode 2y ago
> If they’re better, they will be more common Unfortunately, the word "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Better for the employees is a world of difference compared to "better at getting funding to start a business", "better at getting Venture Capitalists or Angel Investors or Banks" interested. It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.
- chii 2y ago
  may be the word is 'fitter', rather than 'better'. After all, darwinian natural selection is taking place in a free-market economy.
- dools 2y ago
  Well, if you ask me, when it comes to a for profit company there is only one "better", and that's "more profitable". "Better for workers" only shows up in for profit companies if doing things that are better for workers is also better for the profitability of the company. Trying to make for profit companies have a social conscious is, IMHO, pretty dumb. They're for profit. Making things better is what governments are for. A guaranteed job at a socially inclusive minimum wage and set of conditions that the private sector needs to exceed in order to hire people would go a hell of a long way towards resolving many of the problematic workplace tactics used by for profit companies (and is a LOT easier than the patchwork of industrial relations regulations the governemnt currently plays whack-a-mole with). I think that governments are really good at setting boundary conditions and for delivering things that are too important to be left to the whimsy of the private sector (and for natural monopolies like aiports and roads and fiber optic networks and so on), and that most importantly includes the floor price/conditions for labour. > It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned. Hell I'm working 2 jobs to start a company and I sure as shit don't want to be obliged to give a chunk of my company to everyone that comes and goes along the way. If ESOPs or co-ops or whatever make sense it'll be because they help me attract and retain the best talent who are the most profitable. If that's not the case, then why should I share the returns with people who have taken none of the risks?

by dools 2y ago

hurril 2y ago

What is gained by preventing the company from accepting more money than your revenue cap? It would be bad for everyone. What are you trying to optimise?

dools 2y ago
They can have more revenue than the cap I’m just saying they should be publicly listed.
- chii 2y ago
  what makes public listing a good criteria for which the revenue cap be removed? in fact, i dont get the rationale for revenue caps at all. It doesn't produce less inequality, and only produces inefficiencies.
  - dools 2y ago
    Cap on revenue per employee for a company before it must be publicly listed so that a cap on ownership percentage can be more simply enforced.
- hurril 2y ago
  Oh, misunderstood. You still need to think about what it is you wish to optimise for. I am not a regulation hater but naive regulations tend to cause rather than mitigate pathological economic incentives. It is very very hard to get these kinds of things right. Another thing, one related to your original post: it is, of course, good imho to have a working hand-out system so that you don't starve when you are out of a job, or are forced to have to work for really shitty conditions. This causes another problem, however. It is very easy to get dependant on these hand-outs because the difference in pay between the jobs you are able to do and the size of the hand-out can be very small. Even negative. We have (had) this problem in Sweden for a long time. And it is a problem because when people are less poor, then things cost more money because of it. Cynical, I know. Economics is very very hard.
  - dools 2y ago
    I’m optimising for concentration of ownership. So if you allow a privately held company to get too valuable it’s harder to enforce against concentration of ownership, much easier to do with a publicly traded company IMHO. In relation to your concerns about a job guarantee they’re all addressed in writing, in particular by Pavlina Tcherneva who has done the most comprehensive work on the subject along with Bill Mitchell and Randall Wray. It should be noted that I disagree with Bill Mitchell on some political issues but his JG work is rock solid.

eru 2y ago

> That and eliminating involuntary unemployment so that companies have to compete with a guaranteed job that is not exploitative. You don't need to have job guarantees for that. A strong economy in general helps for this, and a basic income would also help.

dools 2y ago
A strong economy helps certainly but a JG eliminates involuntary unemployment, provides a basic income, ensures price stability and sets the minimum work standard the private sector must exceed in order to hire. If you’re waving a magic wand anyway why not choose the best policy?
- eru 2y ago
  See https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic-jobs-against-hijacking-utopia/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/16/basic-income-not-basic...
  - dools 2y ago
    I looked at the first 2 subheadings and they’re already off base. Whoever wrote that article has read nothing that’s been written about job guarantees by the actual economists who specialise in it. There are already too many clear and well rounded refutations of the UBI bingo card talking points to count, there’s no point in my spilling pixels here to go over them again.

t-writescode 2y ago

> If they’re better, they will be more common Unfortunately, the word "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Better for the employees is a world of difference compared to "better at getting funding to start a business", "better at getting Venture Capitalists or Angel Investors or Banks" interested. It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.

chii 2y ago
may be the word is 'fitter', rather than 'better'. After all, darwinian natural selection is taking place in a free-market economy.
dools 2y ago
Well, if you ask me, when it comes to a for profit company there is only one "better", and that's "more profitable". "Better for workers" only shows up in for profit companies if doing things that are better for workers is also better for the profitability of the company. Trying to make for profit companies have a social conscious is, IMHO, pretty dumb. They're for profit. Making things better is what governments are for. A guaranteed job at a socially inclusive minimum wage and set of conditions that the private sector needs to exceed in order to hire people would go a hell of a long way towards resolving many of the problematic workplace tactics used by for profit companies (and is a LOT easier than the patchwork of industrial relations regulations the governemnt currently plays whack-a-mole with). I think that governments are really good at setting boundary conditions and for delivering things that are too important to be left to the whimsy of the private sector (and for natural monopolies like aiports and roads and fiber optic networks and so on), and that most importantly includes the floor price/conditions for labour. > It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned. Hell I'm working 2 jobs to start a company and I sure as shit don't want to be obliged to give a chunk of my company to everyone that comes and goes along the way. If ESOPs or co-ops or whatever make sense it'll be because they help me attract and retain the best talent who are the most profitable. If that's not the case, then why should I share the returns with people who have taken none of the risks?