by slimboyfat 91 Replies latest social current
Thank you, not quite, but certainly a move in the right direction.
Karl Marx "socialism" (the step toward) - Karl Marx "communism".
The practical (not ideological) argument against total employee ownership is that the prospective employees of a startup company would in practically all cases NOT have sufficient capital to get the company going.
Ordinary workers would be much more motivated for example. And it would definitely produce fairer income distribution. Why not give it a go? Why should holders of capital take income from doing nothing? Why is that fairer that a system where the workers get the full benefit of their own labour?
All of these questions assume that humans are the same. We're not! We are all different! Some lead, some follow. There is nothing wrong with following, it just pays less. There is also a lot less responsibility, and thus lower stress. Some melt under stress, they can't lead. Others are at their best under stress, thus they are paid to perform under the conditions.
What motivates one person does not motivate another. Some are motivated by money, so much so that they work like a dog to get it. Some of these are also intelligent beyond the rest of us. Combine the two and you have an almost unstoppable force in accumulating money, building businesses, and leading other humans.
Others like money, but are willing to work just enough to sustain their needs, and spend the rest of their time elsewhere. Again, nothing wrong with that, I would rather hike and bike most weekends rather than work extra, and I would say probably a big percentage of the population falls in line with that kind of thinking.
You said "why not give it a go?" Isn't that what the Soviet Union did? How did that work out? China recognized they were going down the same path, so they reformed in a big hurry.
Again, you can't restrict capital without hurting everyone, not just the "rich." There always have been winners and losers. There always will be. The best way alleviate these issues is to have equality of opportunity, allowing people to work/build businesses/invest to their own level of satisfaction without punishing them with the heavy hand of government.
LostGeneration - I couldn't agree more.
The best way alleviate these issues is to have equality of opportunity, allowing people to work/build businesses/invest to their own level of satisfaction without punishing them with the heavy hand of government.
As I said before, surely social mobility is the real issue here, rather than wealth distribution.
Cedars
Common ownership of the means of production will not abolish leadership, ambition and motivation. Broaden your horizons people.
Equality of opportunity is a red herring, because it simply cannot exist in a capitalist system anyway. Capitalism means that a few live off the interest from their capital, while the rest must sell their labour. If you want complete equality of opportunity you must remove/dismantle the rules that allow people live off unearned income. Funnily enough you don't hear many capitalists arguing for that. Maybe they are not so much in favour of hard work and motivation after all.
Common ownership of the means of production will not abolish leadership, ambition and motivation. Broaden your horizons people.
Lol. Simply throw out a huge generalization then follow up with an ad homenim. I guess us freedom loving capitalists are just too stupid to get it!
LostGeneration....
One size does NOT fit all. We are each and every one motivated by different things. Many of the sharpest minds and most entrepreneurial brilliant are driven by things other than leadership, ambition, and motivation. Sometimes it is simply $$$$. So what?!
Lulz.
Anytime any of us try to discuss this grwoing disparity, those on the right start screaming that we are socialists, waging class warfare, or practicing envy politics. This is just the way it is in the US now. We are all hurting---our children will not do as well as we have---at one time, there was a 40% chance a person could work themselves out of poverty---not so today. There is no way to attend college without coming out with decades of deep debt. And attending college is no guarantee that you will have anything at all. Medical costs are through the roof, and of course the same people that deny that income disparity is a problem(to this OUTRAGEOUS degree) also deny that entire life's savings are lost when a person gets sick, or it's just not important enough to care. THEY aren't the sick ones after all.
Straw men everywhere. I see a problem with the growing inequality---I am a socialist. I'm not a socialist, but that's how we roll in America. So it's nice that our friends over the border are interested, but beware, these issues are nothing more than hateful here anymore. The hostility has reached a level I've never seen. Our president can't just be disagreed with---no, he must be a socialist, foreign, muslim terrorist determined to destroy the country.
Evil motives are assigned to everyone that disagrees---and at times, I even think that is fair. There is a real sense that some are willing to destroy the country to win their argument. Ah well.
Just ranting.
NC
remove/dismantle the rules that allow people live off unearned income
If you earned the capital, then you earned the income that comes from its investment. You also have the right to pass that capital on to your heirs when you die.
Anything else is an encroachment of the basic human right to own property.
