[wat0n]

No, it's not?

If you don't intend to work for life in the corporation, why would you buy property?

It's a fair question. There are many industries where workers simply don't see a point in even having an union.

What are the dividends on $175 worth of Apple?

No idea, but if you only invested $175 on Apple you are probably not too invested.

What constitutional change does it require? Specifically.

Sure, it at least requires special spots in the legislature for unions if you want them to be part of it.

That's also not my impression of how corporatism works. My impression is that there is a formal instance where the government mediates between businesses and workers, not necessarily under codetermination, and the result is used or even implemented as law e.g. minimum sectorial wages or other types of labor law regulating industry-wide conditions.

Not that it's like super unusual, even the US has a very watered down version of this by which there is a formal instance where the government helps mediate between businesses and unions whose functioning is regulated by law, instead of keeping out of the whole thing and letting private parties reach a deal.

Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily, I think it depends a lot on the industry. There are some industries, if anything, where a minimum wage would be completely justified (e.g. where the business has a lot of monopsony power in its industry's labor market and workers find it hard to unionize - it makes more sense for the government to step in directly here). In others, it makes sense for the law to try to encourage the formation of unions so they can reach a bargain with the businesses, essentially working as a bilateral monopoly - codetermination would be an alternative here as well, but if workers really wanted that I would think the union would at least try to get an ownership share large enough to enter the board as a capitalist through the workers' pension fund.

But in many, many other industries it just doesn't make sense. Particularly those where there are many businesses and workers competing, like in most industries where small businesses are the norm. Codetermination doesn't make sense and encouraging unions could prove ineffective in some cases and actively damaging in others.

An investor may put 1% of his portfolio in wat0n Inc and not even notice when it crashes and burns since he's too busy riding AFAIK Inc to the moon and back. I'm happy to see you walk back your claim and now acknowledge that only those who labour in a business can be considered to have more skin than anyone else.

An investor may also invest most of his wealth in the business and not work there for whatever reason. Am I to believe he's got no skin in the game?

Also, many (if not most) of those investors who just invest a little in the business consciously choose to lose voting rights (in exchange for having priority when it comes to paying stock dividends). They also don't expect or exercise much influence either way. Those passive investors get a much better deal when they forfeit voting rights.

[Fasces]

No idea, but if you only invested $175 on Apple you are probably not too invested.

But for you, infinitely more invested than the average Apple worker, in terms of votes.

Sure, it at least requires special spots in the legislature for unions if you want them to be part of it.

Brother, what are you talking about? No one brought this up but you. I'm not talking about the legislature or special seats for unions.

That's also not my impression of how corporatism works.

Your 'impression' is irrelevant. Read the corporatists.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitu ... rporations

[wat0n]

But for you, infinitely more invested than the average Apple worker, in terms of votes.

No? You don't have any relevant voting power or influence. The average Apple worker is far more influential on the company's affairs by virtue of working there, and even more so if unionized (if Apple has unions, I've got no idea about that).

He doesn't need to vote to be influential, just like public servants (e.g. the military) are influential on the affairs of the state even if they don't ever vote.

Brother, what are you talking about? No one brought this up but you. I'm not talking about the legislature or special seats for unions.

You did mention something about the legislature.

Your 'impression' is irrelevant. Read the corporatists.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitu ... rporations

Sure, and it has no mention of making them part of the legislature. It's a lot closer to what I said.

[Fasces]

No idea, but if you only invested $175 on Apple you are probably not too invested.

The example is that even an employee given just a single $175 share of Apple would equally count as ESOPs just as much as someone with 10,000 shares, but even applying the broadest possible definition of employee ownership, only 6.3% of workers are participating.

He doesn't need to vote to be influential, just like public servants (e.g. the military) are influential on the affairs of the state even if they don't ever vote.

If workers exercise informal influence over institutions, what is so scary to you about formalizing it?

You did mention something about the legislature.

I'm literally just talking about workplaces, not government.

it has no mention of making them part of the legislature.

Two elected bodies will exercise legislative power: the Council of Senators; the Council of ‘Provvisori’.

The members of each Corporation form a free electoral body for choosing representatives on the Council of Governors (Provvisori).

The Council of the Provvisori is composed of sixty delegates, elected by universal secret suffrage and proportional representation. Ten provvisori are elected by industrial
workers and agricultural labourers; ten by seamen of all kinds; ten by employers; five by rural and industrial technicians; five by the managerial staffs in private firms; five by the teachers in the public schools, by the students in the higher schools, and by other members of the sixth Corporation; five by the liberal professions; five by public servants; five by Co-operative Societies of production, of labor and of consumption.

Corporatism is the idea that industry groups should have formal legislative authority.

Slovenia, Singapore and Hong Kong are the three states, I think, that have corporatist structures.

[wat0n]

The example is that even an employee given just a single $175 share of Apple would equally count as ESOPs just as much as someone with 10,000 shares, but even applying the broadest possible definition of employee ownership, only 6.3% of workers are participating.

And likewise only a small fraction of all US workers are members of a workers' union. It seems many are just not all that interested in participating in general.

If workers exercise informal influence over institutions, what is so scary to you about formalizing it?

Simple: That it may lead to lower investment and new business creation in the long run.

I'm literally just talking about workplaces, not government.



Corporatism is the idea that industry groups should have formal legislative authority.

Slovenia, Singapore and Hong Kong are the three states, I think, that have corporatist structures.

I see, you're right. I stand corrected.

Even then, though, there are other countries that have some milder forms of this. The examples I mentioned earlier, as I said, are often eventually just signed off by the respective legislatures. In others, like the US, the government acts as a mediator between businesses and unions.

[Fasces]

It seems many are just not all that interested in participating in general.

I want to live in this world where everyone is just freely deciding whether or not to join a union with no fear of reprisal.

This is my problem with a lot of your positions - they assume good faith conduct by US institutions.

That it may lead to lower investment and new business creation in the long run.

Germany and Denmark are notoriously poor EU economies.

In others, like the US, the government acts as a mediator between businesses and unions.

Here we go again, with the good faith completely disregarding the actual US history with unions.

Just this year Biden famously 'mediated' a conflict between a union and their employer, after all.

[wat0n]

I want to live in this world where everyone is just freely deciding whether or not to join a union with no fear of reprisal.

This is my problem with a lot of your positions - they assume good faith conduct by US institutions.

Have US institutions changed that much since the 1970s as to explain the fall in unionization? Many things have changed since then, but I'm not aware of any major legal changes in this regard.

Why do you find it hard to believe someone who doesn't expect to spend the remaining decades of his career working for his current employer isn't enthusiastic about unionizing?

Germany and Denmark are notoriously poor EU economies.

Their per capita GDP is actually lower than the US'

Here we go again, with the good faith completely disregarding the actual US history with unions.

Just this year Biden famously 'mediated' a conflict between a union and their employer, after all.

You're talking as if the US government never sided with unions, ever. Yet it did, in fact, it did so just earlier this year with regards to Amazon.

Furthermore, the conflict you're referring to was a train strike and neither the German nor Danish governments go soft on them (partly because they run the business, but also because of the broader economic impact).

[Fasces]

Have US institutions changed that much since the 1970s as to explain the fall in unionization? Many things have changed since then, but I'm not aware of any major legal changes in this regard.

Why do you find it hard to believe someone who doesn't expect to spend the remaining decades of his career working for his current employer isn't enthusiastic about unionizing?

I'm not going to engage with this gish gallop that somehow the US isn't anti-union. Companies spend half a billion fighting unions per year, and anti union rhetoric skyrocketed in the late 70s and 80s with Reagan. This is well known to any American.

Their per capita GDP is actually lower than the US'

Marginally. And their inequality is much lower, more importantly.

[wat0n]

I'm not going to engage with this gish gallop that somehow the US isn't anti-union. Companies spend half a billion fighting unions per year, and anti union rhetoric skyrocketed in the late 70s and 80s with Reagan. This is well known to any American.

So what? You can also find these things in Europe.

Marginally. And their inequality is much lower, more importantly.

Not because of unions though. It is purely due to direct redistribution by the taxation and social welfare systems.

[Fasces]

So what? You can also find these things in Europe.

And?

Not because of unions though. It is purely due to direct redistribution by the taxation and social welfare systems.

What's this tangent about unions, anyway? I'm not defending or talking about unions. You brought them up.

We were talking about codetermination.

[wat0n]

And?

Do I have to believe then that it's an anti-union region?

What's this tangent about unions, anyway? I'm not defending or talking about unions. You brought them up.

We were talking about codetermination.

From what I read, those guys who are voted by workers tend to be union members (which makes perfect sense). Unions are, at least on paper, the representatives of workers.

[Fasces]

Do I have to believe then that it's an anti-union region?

Your belief one way or another is irrelevant. Believe the world is flat, while you're at it.

[wat0n]

Your belief one way or another is irrelevant. Believe the world is flat, while you're at it.

Just because parts of the public, and even some major political parties, are not keen on unions doesn't mean the law is evidently making it hard to unionize in lieu of other perfectly sensible explanations.

[Rugoz]

The argument for the owner having more risk is not only not convincing, but seems based solely on some pseudo religious views of capitalists.

No, it's based on a fundamental conceptual difference.

The capitalist cannot simply walk away from his contractual obligations. In order to "quit", he has to sell the contract to somebody else. Which, if the company is doing badly, he potentially cannot or only at a great loss.

Not because of unions though. It is purely due to direct redistribution by the taxation and social welfare systems.

Income inequality before taxes and transfers is lower in Denmark.

If workers exercise informal influence over institutions, what is so scary to you about formalizing it?

Nothing, but not because workers have such a great financial stake in the fate of their employer, as people here pretend, but because worker representatives can hardly do a shittier job than investors in overseeing their companies.

[wat0n]

No, it's based on a fundamental conceptual difference.

The capitalist cannot simply walk away from his contractual obligations. In order to "quit", he has to sell the contract to somebody else. Which, if the company is doing badly, he potentially cannot or only at a great loss.

It seems they are taking this loss as some sort of sunk cost, but not the firing of employees arising from the failure of the business. It's a weird reasoning.

Income inequality before taxes and transfers is lower in Denmark.

Not by much, and it's hard to say the same about Germany:

These series come from Frederick Solt's Standardized World Income Inequality Database

[1] Gross income Gini:



[2] Disposable (net) income Gini:



Absolute redistribution ([1] - [2]):



Government redistribution is the main driver of the between-country differences in income inequality (also note that, since redistribution in a country is relatively stable over time, most of the longitudinal variation in income inequality is indeed due to changes in gross income inequality over time).

[Unthinking Majority]

1. As it is, most work-related contracts are signed under some form of duress or coercion.
2. Inequality in the balance of power means these contracts are not truly free.
3. Workers are not freely choosing to not exercise these rights; they are softly coerced through material insecurity.

1. That's not true at all. Workers are free to make whatever choices they want in regards to signing or not signing a contract and so are employers. Nobody owes anyone anything, and nobody has any power to twist the arm of another to sign something.

2. And yet they are. The most powerful company in the world can't force someone to sign a contract in a democratic society. They can't even pressure them, they have no leverage to do that.

3. That's not coercion, that's just life.

Here we go again, implicitly seeing the state as something distinct from the people. This misconception tinges all your conclusions.
...
How can a community of people "steal" from themselves?

In any communist state that has ever existed the people do not have control over the state. In democratic societies the billionaires could have most of their wealth taken from them if the masses wanted that, even if the billionaires didn't want that. Tyranny of the majority. If you're not a billionaire then stealing wealth from billionaires isn't stealing from yourself, its stealing from others and it requires zero sacrifice. I don't mind taxing billionaires more than middle class folks because they can spare more than middle class folks, but i'm also not going to take everything from them.

The base 'unit' of humanity is the tribe, not the individual.

What does this even mean? Laws are based on individuals, not tribes. So are human rights. So are job offers. People who are incapable of supporting themselves or people on the bottom rung or in some trouble that could use a hand can be helped out, but other than that the tribe I support financially is my family, mainly because it includes dependents who are my responsibility.

[Unthinking Majority]

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

I have an uncle who grew up poor and who never graduated high school who started a successful contracting business at the same time as raising a young family. If he can do it anybody can.

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.

You don't become a company with a billion dollar valuation overnight. You start small, acquire loans, sell equity in the company for investment if you want.

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.

We make choices every minute of every day. There's lots of stories of poor immigrants starting successful businesses. People have a lot of agency. The only thing a contracting company needs are tools, a vehicle, and enough money to pay for the materials of the next job until the customer pays for them when its complete.

This does not seem correct or relevant.

Since you did not offer any logic or evidence as to why it is not correct or relevant I will assume it is correct and relevant.

[Godstud]

I have an uncle who grew up poor and who never graduated high school who started a successful contracting business at the same time as raising a young family. If he can do it anybody can.

He's a predatory capitalist! He's an oppressor of the masses!

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it's based on a fundamental conceptual difference.

The capitalist cannot simply walk away from his contractual obligations. In order to "quit", he has to sell the contract to somebody else. Which, if the company is doing badly, he potentially cannot or only at a great loss.

The owner can simply fold the company and thereby get rid of contractual obligations.

I have an uncle who grew up poor and who never graduated high school who started a successful contracting business at the same time as raising a young family. If he can do it anybody can.

That was not the question.

Yes, people from your uncle’s generation had it easier but even your uncle could not have earned enough to buy out and unionize a whole company.

You don't become a company with a billion dollar valuation overnight. You start small, acquire loans, sell equity in the company for investment if you want.

Again, this is not what is being asked.

You are shifting the goalposts to “starting a company”.

We make choices every minute of every day. There's lots of stories of poor immigrants starting successful businesses. People have a lot of agency. The only thing a contracting company needs are tools, a vehicle, and enough money to pay for the materials of the next job until the customer pays for them when it’s complete.

Since you are not even addressing your own claim and have started a new argument, I will assume you concede that the vast majority of workers cannot just quit, get together, and start a company of the same size as they just quit.

At best, they would have to start small.

Also, if that is how you would run a small contracting company, you would be very lucky to not end up with dead and/or penniless workers. Which is why it takes more than that to run a legal contracting business.

Since you did not offer any logic or evidence as to why it is not correct or relevant I will assume it is correct and relevant.

I literally just provided arguments and you pretended that your original argument was different from what it was. Since my arguments were enough to walk you back from your original claim, they seem to have done their job.

[Godstud]

The owner can simply fold the company and thereby get rid of contractual obligations.

You just showed your absolute ignorance about business with this ridiculously stupid statement. It doesn't work like that. Contractual obligations do not disappear.