An Economy Actually Controlled by Workers?

[Helium]

Interesting thread.
I would envision a better system being a huge middle class with a much, much smaller class of poor people, I guess that's pretty obvious. HOw to get there? Hmmm. This would actually make the problem of income disparity a moot point. Look at it this way, if the so called 99 per cent were mostly farely comfortable, we wouldn't care how rich the 1 per cent were. That's the way I look it. I got a good guitar, cupla good books, decent house, my family and Iget along well, I don't covet mansions or car-filled garages. In a sense what you're proposing is to shove more people from poor into middle class. Sorry I'm late on this thread so I'll have to mull it over a bit, but one obvious solution is jobs for everyone. But the economy is designed to produce profits for shareholders; not jobs. In fact, as you note, shareholders have shifted a lot of the jobs off shore to where there's cheap labour and no environmental or labour legislation. I'll have to think about your worker-owned solution.

[Mislilac]

Interesting thread.
I would envision a better system being a huge middle class with a much, much smaller class of poor people, I guess that's pretty obvious. HOw to get there? Hmmm. This would actually make the problem of income disparity a moot point. Look at it this way, if the so called 99 per cent were mostly farely comfortable, we wouldn't care how rich the 1 per cent were. That's the way I look it.

Yeah, I agree. The rich-poor gap is not in and of itself an important factor as long as the poor are relatively well off. The problems arise when the rich figure out ways to increase their wealth at the expense of the poor which I believe is something our current form of capitalism allows for.

I got a good guitar, cupla good books, decent house, my family and Iget along well, I don't covet mansions or car-filled garages.

I am at the low end of the middle class and I have no aspirations for wealth to be honest. I just need enough to be able to comfortably meet my needs and have a bit left over for entertaining myself while I'm not on here trying to find ways to save the world from both the capitalists and the socialists.

In a sense what you're proposing is to shove more people from poor into middle class. Sorry I'm late on this thread so I'll have to mull it over a bit, but one obvious solution is jobs for everyone. But the economy is designed to produce profits for shareholders; not jobs. In fact, as you note, shareholders have shifted a lot of the jobs off shore to where there's cheap labour and no environmental or labour legislation. I'll have to think about your worker-owned solution

Mainly, I am proposing a system which ,at least seemingly, would strip the corporations of the ridiculously high amount of influence that they have over society and over politics. My worker owned solution does not stem from a belief that the existence of different economic classes is inherently exploitative or wrong . (And, yes the government and not just the corporations could become the ruling classes once again under the "right" conditions) It stems from my belief that the general population would be a lot better off under an economy dominated by small businesses and under a government which has nobody to satisfy but the voters. I don't know if this worker owned system would "shove more people from poor to middle class" or develop an economy "designed to produce jobs" as you mentioned, but if there weren't a small amount of people hording ridiculous amounts of wealth the rest of us might get to see some of it. So I guess, less poverty and a bigger, wealthier middle class might be a "side effect" of this system.

[Mislilac]

Here is something that I've been pondering lately. An economy dominated by mainly (relatively) small businesses, regardless of whether or not the business are worker controlled, would be a free market in the genuine sense of the word. The high number of businesses providing the same goods and services would allow for heavy competition and would therefore require much less governmental regulation (price controls for example). Additionally, the high number of workplaces for a profession would give employers or the workers/collective owners much more incentive to provide good working conditions and benefits as employees would have a much easier time finding employment elsewhere. This competition would decrease the need for governmental regulation of working standards.

An economy characterized by the domination of an industry by two or so huge corporations with a bunch of small businesses existing on the side isn't really a genuine free market. What's a "free market" without serious competition? What's a "free market" with a near monopoly? The small business model would be, at least theoretically, a very competitive, environmentally sustainable, pro worker system of free market capitalism.

But I keep going back to the same thing, how do turn our corporate market into a small business one?

[nekdolan]

If workers could vote their wages up they would do so little by little or vote themselves other benefits. While it may seem that such action is beneficial to the worker, if the business goes bankrupt due to being unprofitable than the worker will be hurt as well. So the worker would not increase his own wage if that were the case but how many workers have the knowledge of a business manager? Also what about share holders and investors? Who would invest in a business that could go out of business because no one could make any though decision? What kind of bank would give a loan to such a company?

[siti]

Bula!

What kind of bank would give a loan to such a company?

- You are kidding with this one aren't you? Anyway, not to worry, if the banks refuse to give them loans they can just sell bonds to raise credit. You don't actually have to pay these back and if the going gets really tough you can always get the government to bailout the company, pay off the directors (er - workers in this case) and stuff the creditors. Or can that kind of system only work if you ARE a bank?

[Mislilac]

If workers could vote their wages up they would do so little by little or vote themselves other benefits. While it may seem that such action is beneficial to the worker, if the business goes bankrupt due to being unprofitable than the worker will be hurt as well. So the worker would not increase his own wage if that were the case but how many workers have the knowledge of a business manager?

You do raise some good points here but I don't think it's that simple. One, workers wages would be reflected by how much they sell more or less. They couldn't after all raise their wages from revenue that doesn't exist. If they wanted higher wages, they would have to make additional sales or products to raise the revenue. And secondly, most (not all) people are smart enough to make good long term decisions. People who impulsively use up their life savings are the exception, not the rule for example, are they not?

Also what about share holders and investors? Who would invest in a business that could go out of business because no one could make any though decision? What kind of bank would give a loan to such a company?

Practically all the businesses would be this way. I am working on the assumption that they would be typically successful (for reasons mentioned) and therefore banks and others would give them loans.

[loveroflife]

What if instead of a regular salary when you hired on with the company it was for X percentage of the net profits of that company. It would eliminate the above risk of people voting their salaries over what the company can legitimately afford. Obviously a skilled worker would get a higher percentage than an unskilled worker. It would be more of a risk than you have now but I still think it's worth considering. It would also help reduce poor work habits. If you don't do your job well your business makes less profit, then you get paid less. Just seems like people work harder when working for themselves and they aren't feeling like they are getting less than they deserve. Don't know exactly how it would work as the company added more employee's though? Maybe each department is given X percentage to divide and X amount of work. When the work gets too much for that department they can vote to add more personel? If a department doesn't complete their work the managerial department can go through certain pre-determined measures to hire a new employee?

[Mislilac]

What if instead of a regular salary when you hired on with the company it was for X percentage of the net profits of that company. It would eliminate the above risk of people voting their salaries over what the company can legitimately afford. Obviously a skilled worker would get a higher percentage than an unskilled worker. It would be more of a risk than you have now but I still think it's worth considering. It would also help reduce poor work habits. If you don't do your job well your business makes less profit, then you get paid less. Just seems like people work harder when working for themselves and they aren't feeling like they are getting less than they deserve.

This "X percentage of the net profits..." a great idea, having one's salary directly reflect the amount of work they put in is definitely the best motivator.

Don't know exactly how it would work as the company added more employee's though? Maybe each department is given X percentage to divide and X amount of work. When the work gets too much for that department they can vote to add more personel? If a department doesn't complete their work the managerial department can go through certain pre-determined measures to hire a new employee?

Voting to bring in new people would work. Most people will ,if given the right amount of financial motivation, work hard but most people can realize when the workload is too much and it's in their best interest to bring in a new guy to share the wealth with.

[nekdolan]

You do raise some good points here but I don't think it's that simple. One, workers wages would be reflected by how much they sell more or less. They couldn't after all raise their wages from revenue that doesn't exist. If they wanted higher wages, they would have to make additional sales or products to raise the revenue. And secondly, most (not all) people are smart enough to make good long term decisions. People who impulsively use up their life savings are the exception, not the rule for example, are they not?

Workers could raise their own income by driving the company into debt and eventually bankruptcy. Since the workers aren't responsible the debt would have to be paid by the owner or the shareholders. Then the workers could go to the next company and do the same. If the workers would be the owners they would be unable to quit which would destroy the job market and as a result everyone would have lower wages.

Practically all the businesses would be this way. I am working on the assumption that they would be typically successful (for reasons mentioned) and therefore banks and others would give them loans.

You can't make that kind of assumption. That's like assuming that my 2$ rocket could fly as far as the moon so I should be able to sell it for 2 billion.

There are companies that operate like this. The problem is they are not very efficient and work only in specific industries and with small groups. If they were really efficient than they would have the dominant business model and not what we have now.

Workers who put together a car or a computer aren't always good at making business decisions or decisions that could involve millions of dollars.

In a free market anyone has the right to make the kind of business he or she likes be it the one you like or the one we have now.

Also Communism being not possible is not a bad thing it's a good thing.
Viva la libertate