4 ms·

Why don't we simply make sure that workers and the government have major stakes in companies so that incentives are more aligned with social needs?

largbae 1y ago
The people suppressing the research already have major stakes. What is lacking is any consequence for them at all.
- tehjoker 1y ago
  They do not have the same stake in a healthy society as the rest of us. I agree with consequences for them, but the entire model is flawed. It is motivating a small number of people to claim as much for themselves as possible with little serious stake holding by the broader society other than other rich people. There has to be more democracy introduced.
Nasrudith 1y ago
That would just spread the corruption around along with the rewards as things which make them more money reward them and things which make less effectively punish them. Not too much of a difference quantitatively for workers (job security is negatively impacted by the company doing poorly). That would mean that the government is basically 'bribing itself' whenever it does anything that is aligned with the company. That is the opposite of what you would want. Social needs is a nebulous enough term that it outright scares me imagining what twisted definitions of it would arise naturally from sincere attempts to promote it, let alone cynical abuses. Imagine a religious fundamentalist defining 'social needs'. Horrors like 'we should work to keep kids in the closet for social cohesion' and honestly thinking that it is the right thing to do.
- tehjoker 1y ago
  Our current political system already privileges these people. What are you worried about with expanded democratic rights? It would counterbalance them. A concern with social rights is a step up from narrow concern with economic rights, since it enables the rich to just oppress everyone else. At least you can contest things instead of being ruled dicatorially by the market.

largbae 1y ago

The people suppressing the research already have major stakes. What is lacking is any consequence for them at all.

tehjoker 1y ago
They do not have the same stake in a healthy society as the rest of us. I agree with consequences for them, but the entire model is flawed. It is motivating a small number of people to claim as much for themselves as possible with little serious stake holding by the broader society other than other rich people. There has to be more democracy introduced.

Nasrudith 1y ago

That would just spread the corruption around along with the rewards as things which make them more money reward them and things which make less effectively punish them. Not too much of a difference quantitatively for workers (job security is negatively impacted by the company doing poorly). That would mean that the government is basically 'bribing itself' whenever it does anything that is aligned with the company. That is the opposite of what you would want. Social needs is a nebulous enough term that it outright scares me imagining what twisted definitions of it would arise naturally from sincere attempts to promote it, let alone cynical abuses. Imagine a religious fundamentalist defining 'social needs'. Horrors like 'we should work to keep kids in the closet for social cohesion' and honestly thinking that it is the right thing to do.

tehjoker 1y ago
Our current political system already privileges these people. What are you worried about with expanded democratic rights? It would counterbalance them. A concern with social rights is a step up from narrow concern with economic rights, since it enables the rich to just oppress everyone else. At least you can contest things instead of being ruled dicatorially by the market.