> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the

> "can workplace democracy enable workers to live happier lives?" Compared to what? The most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable? No, not really, the most pro-employee capitalist business imaginable already provides me with pretty sweet life, how can workplace democracy improve on that? If you compare the best example of one system with the worst example of another system, of course the best example wins. But then you switch around the picks and you end up with exactly the opposite conclusion. It's useless. The only good comparisons are average v. average, and worst v. worst. What is the expected situation most workers will find themselves in? What is the lower bound of how bad things can become? Only equal-to-equal comparisons give you any useful information. I'm not assuming parliaments. I'm assuming interest groups acting selfishly and collaborating with other interest groups to further their respective selfish interests. No matter how the democracy happens, in the end somebody chooses what gets voted on, and somebody votes on those proposals, and sooner or later somebody will try to put the question of "should we steal from this other group?" under vote, and everybody not in that group will be heavily incentivized to vote yes. That's just human nature. If your system cannot survive that, then it's not a good system. Reality is a lost cause. Replacing the system with something better has 0% chance of ever happening. So, since it's all purely theoretical anyway, what's the harm in considering the downsides too in addition to upsides?