It’s a meme

  • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Better to have them making the decision than capitalists, who make more money the more they pay workers less

    • Devouring@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Better” is in your opinion. I need answers based on concerns and problems that happens in the real world. A fast-paced world.

      Assuming the revenue of the company doesn’t have massive growth (which is the normal situation unless a breakthrough happened), we need to hire more people who have the skills needed to keep up with the market. So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

      • J Lou@mastodon.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Worker coops are better ethically not just based on opinion. The workers are jointly de facto responsible for using up the inputs to produce the outputs. By the usual ethical principle that legal responsibility should be assigned to the de facto responsible party, the workers should jointly be legally responsible for the produced outputs and liabilities for the used-up inputs.

        1. Worker coops can fire people.
        2. Worker coops can charge initial membership fee when a new worker joins.
        • Devouring@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren’t important. This idea that people can’t be fired is just ridiculous.

          Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never said that people couldn’t get fired.

            The incompetent relative example seems to be a problem with nepotism

            • Devouring@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Agreed. It’s a nepotism problem. I’m just drawing the picture that removing money from the picture basically makes relationships the new currency. It’s basically how life used to be a long time ago, and those who were closer to the leader got better jobs with perks. People will always find a way to benefit and will centralize power eventually. I can’t say much about hypotheticals and whether your coop will fix that, but in my opinion, history suggests that we’ll just end up with a new system of power.

              • J Lou@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I never said anything about removing money.

                What you are talking about is called social capital accumulation, which is a problem in any system.

                A justification for worker coops is the moral principle of assigning legal responsibility to the de facto responsible party. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer receives 100% of the legal responsibility despite the employee being inextricably co-responsible. This violates the aforementioned principle

                • Devouring@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, I don’t think you can use written laws to fight human plans to centralize power. I guess our current system is proof of that. People will always find a way to centralize that power to benefit themselves and their groups.

                  But anyway. I guess we’re getting into a dead end. This is becoming opinion stuff at this point, whether this will work. I’ll have to think more about this stuff.

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        See you’re still trapped within the logic of capitalism which maximizes profits and expansion over other concerns.

        So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who’d rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won’t be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

        These are all massive assumptions