The true extent of wealth disparity in the USA

Post Reply New Topic

So you are saying that since I advocate workers owning, lets say, the factory they work in *, making decisions that benefit the worker/owner (working conditions, wages and profitability) I am saying that Capitalism is evil? You think that Capitalism only exists if outside speculators control the means of production?
Actually, those that create value owning their own work place is very capitalistic. And such a system is far more productive than a system where outside speculators drain and ruin a company for temporary profit. Workers/owners have an interest in maintaing the means of production and even increasing it.
I think you have a very narrow and uninformed definition of Capitalism. Unfortunately, the banks, Wall Street and the government share your prejudice. They slant policy towards the speculators and not those that create value.
* Like in a cooperative. Perhaps I should have explained in depth what a cooperative is. So you think that Land O Lakes is a Capitalism hating bunch of commies? Or perhaps since name calling did not work you are putting words in my mouth and creating strawmen. I never said anything against Capitalism.

Lets suppose that I did say that Capitalism is evil. * Even then your "argument" is outrageously invalid. Because I did not create an international corporation has nothing to do with the proposition: Cooperatives put power into the hands of those that create value and away from those that merely gamble (speculate).
* I did not.

Also, your argument implies that because a corporation is big that means that it is good. That is a catagory error. That is like saying "All dogs are mammals. Therefore all mammals are dogs." There are many things that are big and bad. Nazi Germany at the height of its power was huge.
Now, I realize that I have to explain this. I am not saying that corporations are as evil as Hitler. I am saying that if you say, Big= good then if you are consistent in your reasoning you will have to say that Nazi Germany was good. Now, I doubt you would say that. What I am showing is that your reasoning is inconsistent and contradictes itself.

You are jumping back and forth between definitions.

A worker cooperative is a distinct and different entity than a classic (producer) cooperative. Since you are constantly referring to "workers", I assume this is what you are referring to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

Land O Lakes is *not* a worker cooperative. It has 10,000+ employees that can be fired and hired just as any standard company, and these employees do not get to vote on Land O Lakes company policy. The owners of Land O Lakes (a large number of mostly small agricultural producers, many of which probably have employees of their own) vote on company policy. And Land O Lakes profits go to the owners, not the employees. The most striking difference between a co-operative and a company is that it is usually "one vote per head" instead of "votes per share" in the former. But the owners - not the employees - still call the shots.

Worker cooperatives, on the other hand, are almost exclusively small (Mondragon in Spain being an exception. See below, though) - and they are largely incapable of having any influence in the modern global economy. This is likely due to (1) lack of access to capital, (2) dis-economies of scale and (3) inefficient decision making structures.

On an interesting side note, the often-hailed Mondragon worker cooperative is now seeking assistance from US hedge funds (the very definition of speculators) to avoid bankruptcy in one of its subsidiaries.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b97ccc2-460b ... z2jy1QF8yb

I would like to know what you mean by inefficient. If you the believe goal of an enterprise is to maximize gain for a small circle within, then you might perceive it as inefficient. Do the people at the top of a corporation know more about the machinery than the people working with them? Do you believe workers are incapable of basic math?

Worker cooperatives effectively make a factor input in production (employees) the ones who decide how to utilize factor inputs of production.

This would give the cooperative an incentive to:

• Be unresponsive to needs for restructuring when suffering losses (trying to lay off workers would be like trying to fire your own boss)
• Have inefficient wage structures (wage levels are likely to be set by majority vote, and not according to the skill of the individual)
• Under-investment (as allocating resources to investment would reduce the percentage of revenue going to wages)

And the inefficient wage structure poses a particular problem: It can lead to adverse selection.

High skill individuals would have an incentive to leave the worker cooperative (or not join in the first place), because they would get a higher salary in a company without wage restriction. Low skill individuals, on the other hand, would have an incentive to join/stay, since they get a higher salary than their market value.

And these problems would persist even if the worker cooperative was a non-profit enterprise. It is not contingent on profit maximization being the motive. A non-profit hospital organized as a worker cooperative would face the same incentive problems, for instance.

I know I'm just guessing... but James Mirrlees?

Why would they need to lay off people if they can just lower their wages.

Inefficient? Competitive wage structures may appear to make sense in theory, but in reality they are wasteful. Workplace solidarity does wonders.

You are making an assumption about the people involved. Many worker cooperatives do value investments for example; there is a worker cooperative in San Fransisco called The Cheeseboard Collective, which spawned the Arizemendi Bakery chain which has 4 locations around the bay area, and each are completely autonomous too.

http://arizmendibakery.com/about


Are you saying there is no incentive to have no boss?

Because workers have expenses, too. If you lower wages below a certain threshold, it becomes impossible for a business to attract workers. By laying off workers, on the other hand, one can achieve the same cost reduction without hurting recruitment possibilities.


No. Worker cooperatives make up an insignificant part of the world economy. This isn't even up for debate.


Like I said: Insignificant part of the world economy. How will you raise $ 10 billion in capital to compete with leading private companies of today through worker cooperatives?


Judging by the dearth of worker cooperatives compared to classical capitalist firms, I would say that such an incentive is probably almost completely irrelevant. Most people (including every single publicly employed individual on the planet) seem to be quite capable of functioning within hierarchies.

The "No Boss" concept is either for (1) highly motivated private entrepreneurs or (2) spoiled brats.

Working for someone else is far easier than being self-motivated.


Most entrepreneurs will tell you that self-employment means you have a lot of bosses rather than just one.

Oh yeah those CEO’s create value, and are worth their huge salaries! *
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fraud- ... 2013-08-28
That's the Wall Street Journal, hardly a news source that has a liberal bias!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8uf-ZXLABE
* Actually, they caused the current economic collapse.

I'm getting pretty fed up with the bigotry against CEOs. It's akin to claiming that muslims are violent due to a fractional amount of extremists.

There are millions of CEOs. And yes, there are corrupt ones, just like there are corrupt politicians and violent muslims.

wittgenstein, you did not address my scepticism about your claim wrt. economic viability of worker cooperatives.

Am I to take this as an acquiescence of my points, or did you simply overlook my posts on the subject?

It is not impossible for a worker cooperative to lay people off and I believe unemployment is an unfortunate issue enterprises (socialist or capitalist) within markets can't eliminate.

Because the world economy is a capitalist one. Not because socialist firms are inefficient. The elites go through great lengths to control us.


I never claimed worker cooperatives were more prevalent, what I said was they aren't inefficient and are capable of making relatively large investments.


Lets forget about those 200+ years of violent labor history. Human beings must love hierarchy.

Last edited by RushKing on 07 Nov 2013, 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Adb, from last post on page 4
LOL! Obviously you are being sarcastic. Only an idiot would feel sorry for a group of people that ruined the economy and stole billions from the middle class.
See the above videos.

Why should it be eliminated? Why should companies keep useless employees around?


Conspiracy theory. PPR has enough of those already...


But they are *not* capable of making "relatively large investments", as demonstrated by their insignificance in the global economy.


Grow up. The vast majority of individuals in rich developed countries work in a hierarchy. The "No Boss" environment is mostly a pipe dream...