4 ms·

This sounds like a discussion of pirates I heard on the radio the other morning. It was about how pirates of a few hundred years ago had a very good idea of dem

This sounds like a discussion of pirates I heard on the radio the other morning. It was about how pirates of a few hundred years ago had a very good idea of democracy, and how to ensure that the captain didn't become too far removed from the crew (though like all such systems, it was far from perfect). It went something like this: Captains get elected, and they get elected on cycles. At any point, if people are dissatisfied with the captain, they can overthrow them and reelect a new one (though not during chases or battles). The bit that rings home with this article though, is that the captain generally had to eat with the crew members. If any one of the crew members decided they liked the captains meal better then theirs, the captain would have to swap. Apparently, this helped to ensure some humbleness in the captain. Even though they called the shots, they were not this mystical being that nobody saw, interacted with, or felt out of touch with. I think the tying of the presidents salary to that of his cleaners is a good example of this. He still gets to be the boss man, but can do it without being too far removed from the rest of the population of workers.

icebraining 13y ago
The economist Peter Leeson did a whole book around that, called The Invisible Hook[1]. I haven't read it, but the Econtalk podcast with the author[2] was interesting. That said, I don't think this measure will be nearly as successful as the pirates'. I'd rather see the executive body be elected by the workers, as in the Mondragon corporation[3]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.htm... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporat...
- jaynos 13y ago
  It's a decent book. The premise is good and it's very detailed. It's a really quick, fun read.
- pserwylo 13y ago
  Well there you go. Now that you've mentioned The Invisible Hook, it occurs to me that this is what they were talking about on the radio. Thanks for the link.
WalterBright 13y ago
Keep in mind that pirate crews were shareholders in the venture, and only got paid a cut of the booty if there even was any booty. This is quite unlike how cleaning staff are paid.
- nhaehnle 13y ago
  It is also unlike how administrative and executive staff are paid. Sure, exec positions often (though not always) have some performance-related bonuses. However, those are normally on top of a base salary that is already rather ridiculous if you're really honest with yourself. Unlike in those pirates' case, there's simply no way an executive might walk away with a zero outcome (let alone a negative one). So the two are not at all comparable, and executives ought to be treated like janitors (or vice versa). The way executive income tends to be structured today does follow some logic that makes sense internal to the framework in which it exists. Once you step outside of that framework, however, it's pretty clear that a sane design of society based on almost any reasonably notion of distributive justice would not accept this structure.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    That's if you're looking just at compensation. However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain. A secretary is not often in the same position. It's just like selling a product. If you base it off "cost" - you set yourself in a hole to start with. But, if you base it off the value you can create / save, then you have leverage to make more money.
    - nhaehnle 13y ago
      However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though: 1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice. 2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?

icebraining 13y ago

The economist Peter Leeson did a whole book around that, called The Invisible Hook[1]. I haven't read it, but the Econtalk podcast with the author[2] was interesting. That said, I don't think this measure will be nearly as successful as the pirates'. I'd rather see the executive body be elected by the workers, as in the Mondragon corporation[3]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_Hook [2] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/leeson_on_pirat.htm... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporat...

jaynos 13y ago
It's a decent book. The premise is good and it's very detailed. It's a really quick, fun read.
pserwylo 13y ago
Well there you go. Now that you've mentioned The Invisible Hook, it occurs to me that this is what they were talking about on the radio. Thanks for the link.

WalterBright 13y ago

Keep in mind that pirate crews were shareholders in the venture, and only got paid a cut of the booty if there even was any booty. This is quite unlike how cleaning staff are paid.

nhaehnle 13y ago
It is also unlike how administrative and executive staff are paid. Sure, exec positions often (though not always) have some performance-related bonuses. However, those are normally on top of a base salary that is already rather ridiculous if you're really honest with yourself. Unlike in those pirates' case, there's simply no way an executive might walk away with a zero outcome (let alone a negative one). So the two are not at all comparable, and executives ought to be treated like janitors (or vice versa). The way executive income tends to be structured today does follow some logic that makes sense internal to the framework in which it exists. Once you step outside of that framework, however, it's pretty clear that a sane design of society based on almost any reasonably notion of distributive justice would not accept this structure.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  That's if you're looking just at compensation. However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. In that perspective, a few million dollar salary seems like a bargain. A secretary is not often in the same position. It's just like selling a product. If you base it off "cost" - you set yourself in a hole to start with. But, if you base it off the value you can create / save, then you have leverage to make more money.
  - nhaehnle 13y ago
    However, a exec can make one decision that can save / make a company millions or billions of dollars. I understand how the current situation is justified. Two questions though: 1. How much of that is down to the skill of the exec? A sibling comment addressed this problem as well: If there are many people who have roughly the same likeliness-of-success, but comparatively much fewer positions for such people to fill, then income basically becomes a lottery. Lotteries are not a basis for a system that achieves distributive justice. 2. Taking an additional step back, how reasonable is it to have people in such powerful positions in the first place? After centuries (actually, millenia) of experience, we decided that by and large, concentrating too much power into few hands is a bad idea in politics. Especially with large corporations, where the boundary between political and business positions becomes rather fuzzy, it is reasonable to ask whether the same lessons apply there as well?