[Godstud]

@Pants-of-dog. You have no argument. You just have an ideology that you need to push to get your SJW points.

It wouldn't matter if those billionaires helped a million people. According to you they'd still be evil. Your arguments are infantile and asinine.

[Pants-of-dog]

So now that we gave seen that employees make most or all of the money, including the money that is risked in investment, as well as taking as many risks as the owner, or even more risks.

In other words, we have dismantled every given argument for the owner's unilateral appropriation of most of the money.

Since that is the case, perhaps the capitalists can provide another argument?

[Unthinking Majority]

So now that we gave seen that employees make most or all of the money, including the money that is risked in investment, as well as taking as many risks as the owner, or even more risks.

In other words, we have dismantled every given argument for the owner's unilateral appropriation of most of the money.

I claim that the sky is green, therefore the sky is green.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Unthinking Majority

If there is any justification that you feel has not been addressed, please let me know and I will clarify how it has been dismantled.

[Fasces]

If it influences investment decisions, it definitely does determine the value of a project

These decisions are made prior to hiring labor. They are not involved in determining the value of the product, just the hypothetical value of a hypothetical product - as you like to say, there is 'risk' so the value of opportunity cost is unquantifiable and doesn't matter when determining accounting profit.

Although, one can't really just ignore the real world when discussing ethics.

Worker wages have stagnated since the 1970s, despite a massive increase in productivity per worker. Management wages and capital return have skyrocketed. I can acknowledge that the real world acts in unethical ways without resigning myself to the laziness of "it is, and so it must be". It is that laziness which is central to most conservative thinking.

A private business cannot compel you to do anything by force, only the state can.

A private business, especially one which controls a man's healthcare access, livelihood, and pension, can and does compel behavior.

Where the market fails, the "democratic body" (i.e. the state) is supposed to step in to protect consumers.

There is more to a market than capitalists and consumers. The most important, in fact. Namely, workers.

As for the state making all investment decisions

I never said the state should make all, most, some, or any investment decisions.

Most people change jobs multiple times in their life, very few change countries. The barrier is much higher. And while people are educated to be patriotic, they aren't exactly educated to be loyal to their company.

All this says to me is that you're perfectly OK with corporate raiders running around and closing down firms for personal profit, as they do, but are against giving workers an equitable power - despite the fact that a worker's livelihood is under threat, not just an arbitrary quantity of their net worth. It is explicitly an anti-worker stance, as you vocalized here:

compared to the shareholder value that probably doesn't amount to much

Shareholders are not necessary to produce goods or value. You could nationalize every shareholder's stock tomorrow and production would continue without a blip.

[wat0n]

These decisions are made prior to hiring labor. They are not involved in determining the value of the product, just the hypothetical value of a hypothetical product - as you like to say, there is 'risk' so the value of opportunity cost is unquantifiable and doesn't matter when determining accounting profit.

So...?

Note we're talking about economic profit, not accounting profit.

Worker wages have stagnated since the 1970s, despite a massive increase in productivity per worker. Management wages and capital return have skyrocketed. I can acknowledge that the real world acts in unethical ways without resigning myself to the laziness of "it is, and so it must be". It is that laziness which is central to most conservative thinking.

This is actually quite controversial. If you add benefits like health insurance to get total compensation, it has not stagnated.

A private business, especially one which controls a man's healthcare access, livelihood, and pension, can and does compel behavior.

Only because the state allows it.

[Fasces]

Note we're talking about economic profit, not accounting profit.

I'm not, and wasn't. I made the distinction clear and because economic profit is based on unrealized hypotheticals, it isn't relevant.

This is actually quite controversial. If you add benefits like health insurance to get total compensation, it has not stagnated.

Americans pay through the nose for their healthcare. That the wage theft happens from multiple vectors doesn't make it less of a theft. Investor and manager pay still outpaces it, regardless.

Only because the state allows it.

The state isn't some external thing separate/removed/above from society, as you try to portray it. Regardless, this presumes that not all organizations should be democratic. I reject that. All organizations should aim to be as democratic as feasible, whether its a school's student council, neighborhood HOA, a city football Sunday league, a Fortune 500 company, or the state legislature. There's no need to get caught in the weeds about 'at which point should an organization have to adopt democratic mechanisms'. They should, at every point.

[wat0n]

I'm not, and wasn't. I made the distinction clear and because economic profit is based on unrealized hypotheticals, it isn't relevant.

It is relevant since that's what agents are trying to maximize.

In fact, opportunity costs are explicitly taken into account when evaluating projects.

Americans pay through the nose for their healthcare. That the wage theft happens from multiple vectors doesn't make it less of a theft. Investor and manager pay still outpaces it, regardless.

That the "theft" doesn't happen through businesses is irrelevant to you?

And why is it theft, anyway?

The state isn't some external thing separate/removed/above from society, as you try to portray it. Regardless, this presumes that not all organizations should be democratic. I reject that. All organizations should aim to be as democratic as feasible, whether its a school's student council, neighborhood HOA, a city football Sunday league, a Fortune 500 company, or the state legislature. There's no need to get caught in the weeds about 'at which point should an organization have to adopt democratic mechanisms'. They should, at every point.

No one said the state is separate from society, only that the state is separate from businesses, which it is.

If all institutions should be democratic, when will China become one?

Should armies also be deployed and operate according to democracy?

[Fasces]

It is relevant since that's what agents are trying to maximize.

In fact, opportunity costs are explicitly taken into account when evaluating projects.

I understand that, wat0n. But LTV isn't about the value of a project - it is about the value of a widget, which opportunity cost plays no role in. It's like criticizing accounting profit for not accounting for opportuntiy cost. You're asking it to measure something it isn't attempting to measure.

That the "theft" doesn't happen through businesses is irrelevant to you?

And why is it theft, anyway?

Theft of surplus value generated by workers.

If all institutions should be democratic, when will China become one?

A complete 'whatabout'. In any case, I support the democratization of the Chinese Communist Party. They should increase mechanisms for intraparty democracy, and expand party membership by making it easier for people to become voting members, and expand the number of seats that are voted on rather than appointed for the National Party Congress.

Should armies also be deployed and operate according to democracy?

They do. In the United States soldiers vote for their commander in chief and for the Congresspeople who have the power to declare wars, do they not? Would you take that away?

I've already said I'm not talking about the abolishment of hierarchy or direct democracy over every decision within an organization. My proposal was about reserving some seats on the Board for members voted on by the workers of the company - not letting workers vote on late policies or whether their manager wants to fire them for poor performance.

[wat0n]

I understand that, wat0n. But LTV isn't about the value of a project - it is about the value of a widget, which opportunity cost plays no role in. It's like criticizing accounting profit for not accounting for opportuntiy cost. You're asking it to measure something it isn't attempting to measure.

Which is why it, well, sucks.

Theft of surplus value generated by workers.

By whom?

And is it theft or healthcare services are in fact more expensive?

A complete 'whatabout'. In any case, I support the democratization of the Chinese Communist Party. They should increase mechanisms for intraparty democracy, and expand party membership by making it easier for people to become voting members, and expand the number of seats that are voted on rather than appointed for the National Party Congress.

Or maybe just let other parties exist.

They do. In the United States soldiers vote for their commander in chief and for the Congresspeople who have the power to declare wars, do they not? Would you take that away?

I've already said I'm not talking about the abolishment of hierarchy or direct democracy over every decision within an organization. My proposal was about reserving some seats on the Board for members voted on by the workers of the company - not letting workers vote on late policies or whether their manager wants to fire them for poor performance.

So should we vote for the boards too, even if we don't even work there?

[Fasces]

And is it theft or healthcare services are in fact more expensive?

The US pays more for healthcare per capita than any other developed nation, suggesting there are systemic issues behind the rising cost of healthcare that can't be summed up as just 'healthcare expensive yo', while corporate profits (which already account for losses due to healthcare) are at record highs - it is theft of surplus value. Regardless, I'm not getting into a discussion on the healthcare issue here.

Or maybe just let other parties exist.

They do, but regardless: pluralism is not synonymous with democracy.

So should we vote for the boards too, even if we don't even work there?

Shareholders literally do.

Instead of shareholders electing 100% of board seats, some (a plurality) should be reserved to election by the employees of the firm. I've explained this several times and I don't see where the miscommunication is coming from.

It comes down to you believing that those that buy their votes are more deserving to have a voice at how a company is run than those that sweat for them.

[Fasces]

This isn't even an insane proposal. Codetermination has been a thing in Germany for the past sixty years, for almost half of seats for companies with more than 2,000 employees and for a third of seats for companies between 500-2,000. Where is this epidemic of rent-seeking workers plaguing German industry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitbestimmungsgesetz

In Denmark, one of those 'freest economies of the world' where ease of doing business is routinely heralded codetermination is required for all firms with more than 20 employees. The conservatives in Canada in 2021 had this as part of their official platform, for fuck's sake. This isn't Soviet council communism I'm proposing here.

[Unthinking Majority]

Theft of surplus value generated by workers.

It's literally not theft if employees voluntarily sign a contract stipulating how they are compensated. If they want stock options they can ask to put it in their contract. At any time any worker who feels workers are exploited can quit their job and start a co-op and bring other co-workers with them so that they are all equal owners in the company they work at, but workers generally choose not to do this.

Meanwhile, socialists/communists steal rich people's wealth through taxes without their consent in order to redistribute wealth. Under a communist economy they also steal the extra value created from the most productive workers and give it to the least productive workers and call this "moral", while also making it illegal for the most productive workers to leave the country, essentially turning them into slaves of the least productive workers & the state. I don't see how this is more "moral". You could also argue that there's no such thing as a good communist since these theories are virtually all based on using the violence of the state to steal from people without their consent, which is the same thing communists like Lenin accuse capitalists of doing in the international economy.

[Fasces]

It's literally not theft if employees voluntarily sign a contract stipulating how they are compensated. If they want stock options they can ask to put it in their contract. At any time any worker who feels workers are exploited can quit their job and start a co-op and bring other co-workers with them so that they are all equal owners in the company they work at, but workers generally choose not to do this.

If things such as universal healthcare, housing, and UBI existed, I'd agree with you. As it is, most work-related contracts are signed under some form of duress or coercion. Inequality in the balance of power means these contracts are not truly free. Workers are not freely choosing to not exercise these rights; they are softly coerced through material insecurity.

I'm not a utopian, and I do not expect a perfect world to exist free of all injustice. Our world could be better, though.

state to steal from people without their consent,

Here we go again, implicitly seeing the state as something distinct from the people. This misconception tinges all your conclusions. The base 'unit' of humanity is the tribe, not the individual.

How can a community of people "steal" from themselves?

[Pants-of-dog]

It's literally not theft if employees voluntarily sign a contract stipulating how they are compensated. If they want stock options they can ask to put it in their contract. At any time any worker who feels workers are exploited can quit their job and start a co-op and bring other co-workers with them so that they are all equal owners in the company they work at, but workers generally choose not to do this.

In my many decades of working, this has never actually been a realistic option for me at any point.

In the vast majority of cases (for reasons previously explained in this thread) even the total of all the wealth of all workers in a given company will not equal the capital it costs to create the same company.

To argue that this is “my choice” is unreasonable and unrealistic. I never chose to have so little wealth as to prevent me from social mobility.

Meanwhile, socialists/communists steal rich people's wealth through taxes without their consent in order to redistribute wealth.

You vote for taxes, just like everyone else.

Under a communist economy they also steal the extra value created from the most productive workers and give it to the least productive workers and call this "moral", while also making it illegal for the most productive workers to leave the country, essentially turning them into slaves of the least productive workers & the state. I don't see how this is more "moral". You could also argue that there's no such thing as a good communist since these theories are virtually all based on using the violence of the state to steal from people without their consent, which is the same thing communists like Lenin accuse capitalists of doing in the international economy.

This does not seem correct or relevant.

[wat0n]

The US pays more for healthcare per capita than any other developed nation, suggesting there are systemic issues behind the rising cost of healthcare that can't be summed up as just 'healthcare expensive yo', while corporate profits (which already account for losses due to healthcare) are at record highs - it is theft of surplus value. Regardless, I'm not getting into a discussion on the healthcare issue here.

None of which can be reasonably blamed on businesses.

And yes, the US pays more than other advanced nations (for now at least) perhaps because it also is where much of the innovation of new treatments is rolled out for patient use first (first adopter effect).

They do, but regardless: pluralism is not synonymous with democracy.

It is a necessary condition for one.

Shareholders literally do.

Instead of shareholders electing 100% of board seats, some (a plurality) should be reserved to election by the employees of the firm. I've explained this several times and I don't see where the miscommunication is coming from.

It comes down to you believing that those that buy their votes are more deserving to have a voice at how a company is run than those that sweat for them.

Shareholders own the business, as such, they have most skin in the game.

As for the examples of Denmark and Germany, workers are not represented in executive positions. At least from what I was able to find, in Denmark their powers have more to do with ensuring transparency and reducing information asymmetries within the firm (e.g. pay transparency and transparency regarding other working conditions) rather than making executive decisions. It seems the same happens in Germany.

[Pants-of-dog]

Shareholders do not have more risk than employees.

[wat0n]

Of course they do.

Again, you're assuming employees can't get new jobs if their employer goes bust.

Shareholders do lose their investment in that event.

[Fasces]

It is a necessary condition for one.

For liberal democracy, yes. Not all democracies are liberal democracies. Intraorganizational democracy can't be pluralist, by definition, because it is within a single organization. Should the Democratic Party give votes to Republican Party members in determining its platform? Its absurd.

Shareholders own the business, as such, they have most skin in the game.

I knew you'd end up there.

This critique is more broadly a critique that has been rehashed for centuries, basically a restatement of the idea that individuals without property or land should not vote because they can't be trusted because they don't have 'stake in the game'.

To sum up your argument:

A worker cannot be trusted to make beneficial decisions for his company, through a vote, because although he depends on it for his livelihood, his food, his shelter, his healthcare, etc. he hasn't bought his vote and is thus not committed to its long-term health.

A shareholder can be trusted to make beneficial decisions for the company, through a vote, because they bought that vote, and are motivated by profit. They may not be a member of that community, or dependent in any way on the continued life of the company but can be better trusted because they assumed risk and want a monetary return on that risk.

Consequently, workers should not have a voice in the long-term decision-making of the company.

I don't find it convincing.

As for the examples of Denmark and Germany, workers are not represented in executive positions. At least from what I was able to find, in Denmark their powers have more to do with ensuring transparency and reducing information asymmetries within the firm (e.g. pay transparency and transparency regarding other working conditions) rather than making executive decisions. It seems the same happens in Germany.

Workers' representatives play a role in choosing their leadership, in voting in favor of taking on debt, on mergers, etc. Supervisory boards have to approve the hiring of executive officers, and the adoption of their strategic plans. There is no reason to reject the voice of workers.

No one ever was talking about workers themselves micromanaging management decisions except you, who keeps bringing it up as a strawman.

electing a representative to that board to act in their interests - not some sort of direct democracy referendum. IE: If a Board of Directors has 6 seats, workers of the firm should be able to pick individuals to serve on a plurality, if not majority, of those seats

My proposal was about reserving some seats on the Board for members voted on by the workers of the company - not letting workers vote on late policies or whether their manager wants to fire them for poor performance.

worker voice represented in management, and the ability of workers to approve or veto some decisions (such as going public, selling to a specific buyer, etc).

[wat0n]

For liberal democracy, yes. Not all democracies are liberal democracies. Intraorganizational democracy can't be pluralist, by definition, because it is within a single organization. Should the Democratic Party give votes to Republican Party members in determining its platform? Its absurd.

But not for managing the state.

Clearly, having a single party regime that bans others outright isn't a democracy. As simple as that.

I knew you'd end up there.





To sum up your argument:

A worker cannot be trusted to make beneficial decisions for his company, through a vote, because although he depends on it for his livelihood, his food, his shelter, his healthcare, etc. he hasn't bought his vote and is thus not committed to its long-term health.

A shareholder can be trusted to make beneficial decisions for the company, through a vote, because they bought that vote, and are motivated by profit. They may not be a member of that community, or dependent in any way on the continued life of the company but can be better trusted because they assumed risk and want a monetary return on that risk.

Consequently, workers should not have a voice in the long-term decision-making of the company.

I don't find it convincing.

This assumes all workers have no other choice but to work for their employer and that shareholders obviously have other sources of income. This is a very strong assumption that doesn't need to hold.

In fact, it doesn't hold for the vast majority of businesses - keeping in mind most are small.

And sometimes it also doesn't hold for large ones either, particularly the second part.

Workers' representatives play a role in choosing their leadership, in voting in favor of taking on debt, on mergers, etc. Supervisory boards have to approve the hiring of executive officers, and the adoption of their strategic plans. There is no reason to reject the voice of workers.

No one ever was talking about workers themselves micromanaging management decisions except you, who keeps bringing it up as a strawman.

From what I can see in Germany (the poster child for codetermination) the tie breaking vote, if any,
in supervisory boards comes from the company's owners.

Is that what born-again Marxists regard as a worker's democracy?