8 ms·

Overoptimize on worker happiness -> underoptimize for profit -> company goes bust -> workers lose their jobs -> no worker happiness

stavros 2y ago
Well, there are worker-owned coops, and they haven't gone bust, so how does that work? It's almost as if the workers don't actually want to lose their jobs!
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Survivorship bias. You have to compare against all that have in fact gone bust over the same timeframe.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    If anything, co-ops seem to survive better than traditional companies - https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative_survival_1.pdf https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative...
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      Did you reply to the wrong comment?
_s_a_m_ 2y ago
That's the cliché, and I dont think it's even remotely true.
vidarh 2y ago
Last time I looked at data, worker coops were less likely to fail than most other corporate structures.
- Jensson 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Doesn't generally seem supported by data. E.g. https://www.fiftybyfifty.org/2021/06/workers-at-cooperatives-report-high-job-satisfaction-and-community-engagement/ https://www.fiftybyfifty.org/2021/06/workers-at-cooperatives... Elsewhere I've seen some reporting on cooperatives report lower satisfaction on some metrics, usually suspected to be exactly because worker cooperatives tend to give employees more of a stake and so stress levels around the future of the business may be higher. At the same time, it is flawed to focus on any purported notion that they don't optimize for "worker happiness" because workers decide what they optimize for. And so that may or may not be "happiness" for any given coop, but it certainly does mean optimizing for what workers care about. Comparing that to, I presume the notion of e.g. the Soviet Union as representative of "communism", where workers had near no say in what the dicators imposed on them, seems to be a rather crass and gross misrepresentation when used as a comparison for workers coops where they do have a say.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > just like how communism There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. If free public libraries didn't exist and were proposed today, they'd be accused of communism. If free public legal deference did not exist today, anyone proposing it would be accused of being a communist. Also notice that using public money to hurt a person, i.e. prosecution, is never accused of an ideology. These sort of comparisons are deeply unhelpful and only betray illiteracy of the accuser.
    - tristor 2y ago
      This criticism would carry more weight if this entire thread wasn't full of snippets of communist fanfic about using legal force to try to upend reality and ending the profit motive for companies and enforcing worker collectives.
rakoo 2y ago
> underoptimize for profit -> company goes bust That's a wild statement that is going to need some strong proof
- randunel 2y ago
  Proof of what? Proof that non profitable companies go bust, which is what your quote says? Or proof that over optimising for employee happiness results in under optimising for profit, which you haven't quoted?
  - glenngillen 2y ago
    You shifted the criteria here. Under optimise for profit does not mean unprofitable.
  - rakoo 2y ago
    Proof that underoptimizing for profit, not being non profitable, means going bust. Exactly what is quoted in fact.
- CodeGroyper 2y ago
  How is it a wild statement? The whole point of a company is to make money. It's like asking why workers care about their salaries.
  - olex 2y ago
    This is an often stated postulate, but I'm not sure I agree. Sure, making money is necessary for a company to survive, but it doesn't have to be an end goal, and imho it's detrimental when it is. The goal can and should be to make a great product, create and make available something that otherwise would not exist, improve some product or process, etc - money and company itself are or should be just a means to a goal like that.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      And the measure of how well you are making a great product, creating something that would otherwise not exist, or improve some other product or process is how much your customers are willing to pay you for what you are doing. If you are creating value for other people, you are making money -- money is a measuring unit that quantifies transferable value.
6510 2y ago
If with over in overoptimized you mean where it starts cutting into optimizing for earnings it is by definition true. One could similarly say that the company goes kaput if you over-optimize for profit extraction. The goal should be to some-how optimize for the sweet spot where the well-being of the company, the employees, investors, the economy and the environment are sufficiently in balance. I think the customer has a good bit of influence by voting with their wallet but we don't see it in action very often. One could underoptimize for that too!

stavros 2y ago

Well, there are worker-owned coops, and they haven't gone bust, so how does that work? It's almost as if the workers don't actually want to lose their jobs!

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Survivorship bias. You have to compare against all that have in fact gone bust over the same timeframe.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  If anything, co-ops seem to survive better than traditional companies - https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative_survival_1.pdf https://www.uk.coop/sites/default/files/2020-10/co-operative...
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment?

_s_a_m_ 2y ago

That's the cliché, and I dont think it's even remotely true.

vidarh 2y ago

Last time I looked at data, worker coops were less likely to fail than most other corporate structures.

Jensson 2y ago
[flagged]
- vidarh 2y ago
  Doesn't generally seem supported by data. E.g. https://www.fiftybyfifty.org/2021/06/workers-at-cooperatives-report-high-job-satisfaction-and-community-engagement/ https://www.fiftybyfifty.org/2021/06/workers-at-cooperatives... Elsewhere I've seen some reporting on cooperatives report lower satisfaction on some metrics, usually suspected to be exactly because worker cooperatives tend to give employees more of a stake and so stress levels around the future of the business may be higher. At the same time, it is flawed to focus on any purported notion that they don't optimize for "worker happiness" because workers decide what they optimize for. And so that may or may not be "happiness" for any given coop, but it certainly does mean optimizing for what workers care about. Comparing that to, I presume the notion of e.g. the Soviet Union as representative of "communism", where workers had near no say in what the dicators imposed on them, seems to be a rather crass and gross misrepresentation when used as a comparison for workers coops where they do have a say.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > just like how communism There is some kind of derangement in the English speaking West, any attempt to reign in power of capital must be communist. If free public libraries didn't exist and were proposed today, they'd be accused of communism. If free public legal deference did not exist today, anyone proposing it would be accused of being a communist. Also notice that using public money to hurt a person, i.e. prosecution, is never accused of an ideology. These sort of comparisons are deeply unhelpful and only betray illiteracy of the accuser.
  - tristor 2y ago
    This criticism would carry more weight if this entire thread wasn't full of snippets of communist fanfic about using legal force to try to upend reality and ending the profit motive for companies and enforcing worker collectives.

rakoo 2y ago

> underoptimize for profit -> company goes bust That's a wild statement that is going to need some strong proof

randunel 2y ago
Proof of what? Proof that non profitable companies go bust, which is what your quote says? Or proof that over optimising for employee happiness results in under optimising for profit, which you haven't quoted?
- glenngillen 2y ago
  You shifted the criteria here. Under optimise for profit does not mean unprofitable.
- rakoo 2y ago
  Proof that underoptimizing for profit, not being non profitable, means going bust. Exactly what is quoted in fact.
CodeGroyper 2y ago
How is it a wild statement? The whole point of a company is to make money. It's like asking why workers care about their salaries.
- olex 2y ago
  This is an often stated postulate, but I'm not sure I agree. Sure, making money is necessary for a company to survive, but it doesn't have to be an end goal, and imho it's detrimental when it is. The goal can and should be to make a great product, create and make available something that otherwise would not exist, improve some product or process, etc - money and company itself are or should be just a means to a goal like that.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    And the measure of how well you are making a great product, creating something that would otherwise not exist, or improve some other product or process is how much your customers are willing to pay you for what you are doing. If you are creating value for other people, you are making money -- money is a measuring unit that quantifies transferable value.

6510 2y ago

If with over in overoptimized you mean where it starts cutting into optimizing for earnings it is by definition true. One could similarly say that the company goes kaput if you over-optimize for profit extraction. The goal should be to some-how optimize for the sweet spot where the well-being of the company, the employees, investors, the economy and the environment are sufficiently in balance. I think the customer has a good bit of influence by voting with their wallet but we don't see it in action very often. One could underoptimize for that too!