China is not, its controlled by a centralized party but it lets people do their own thing. I noticed you didnt mention Cuba as a great example of communism, “Because sanctions they cant get ahead!!!” You should check out the vox video on how well their system works.
Please explain to me how cooperative ownership means not getting the benefit of your labor.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners. So I would not be incentivized to work harder or longer because I dont get the direct benefit.
China is not, its controlled by a centralized party but it lets people do their own thing.
How to say you have no clue how the system in China works.
I noticed you didnt mention Cuba as a great example of communism, “Because sanctions they cant get ahead!!!” You should check out the vox video on how well their system works.
Cuba has been fucked over by the US regime since the revolution dummy.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners. So I would not be incentivized to work harder or longer because I dont get the direct benefit.
Owning your own business doesn’t benefit you. Just how dumb are you exactly?
What I noticed is that you have really poor reading comprehension because I answered your questions repeatedly. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over like a broken record without actually addressing anything I said. It’s like talking to a bot.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners
Correct. Now, apply that exact same analysis to the capitalist company.
The average worker earns $34/hr. Let’s say you work for a company that employs 10 people.
At 9am, you produce $40 profit for the company, as does every other employee. For that, you each receive $34, and the shareholders receive $60.
At 10am, all the other workers produce $40 for the company, but you produce $4000. Company grosses $4360, pays out $340 in payroll, and keeps $4020 in profit.
Simple, right? You gave the company an hour; you received an hour’s pay. You don’t have a claim to the company profits; those belong to the shareholders. Your claim is $68 for those two hours of work, not the value of what you produce. That’s capitalism.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under socialism, as a worker, you are also a shareholder in the company.
Under socialism, your claim is $68 for the two hours of work, plus 1/10th of the company profits. You receive $34 + $6 for 9am, and $34 + $402 for 10am.
Fwiw, I don’t agree with the idea of state-owned businesses. But, I do believe that most businesses should operate as partnerships or co-ops, where the people doing the work are also the owners, and entitled to their fair share of the company’s profits.
As an owner, if you see me freeloading on the factory floor, you can petition the other owners to have me fired. If you’re the only one putting in any work, you can demand the rest of us pay you better, or you can quit.
I understand what you are saying but there are two important factors that change the whole story. The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
The second thing is under a socialistic structure the amount of overall wealth will be reduced. I had two jobs, I worked for Megacorp as an engineer, and I renovated houses. I personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked, I would not have done it. Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
All this to say that sure the worker could get more money, but the whole society would be poorer so it is a bad exchange.
No, I don’t think you do. The reason I don’t think you do is because you made this criticism:
personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked,
How would that play out in the scenarios I described?
You would have earned $34/he for the first 40 hours, then $51/hr for the overtime. You would have received the direct, time-and-a-half pay for your labor.
But then, you don’t have an external shareholder to pay: you get a fair share of the company profits. Not just what you produced, but what the company produced.
I didn’t adequately define a method for determining a fair share. I assumed every worker was working the same number of hours, so there was no need to consider workaholics like yourself.
But the solution is simple: each worker receives $34/hr straight time, $51/hr overtime, just as we do it now. Additionally, each worker receives 1 share for each hour of their labor, and the company periodically buys back those shares by evenly dividing the profits earned during that period. Your regular co-workers earn 40 shares a week; you, the workaholic, earn 70 or 80 shares.
Your criticism that you don’t get the direct benefit of your labor is simply wrong: you still earn your hourly wage, you just also earn a profit when the company does.
Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
Exactly: those “negative things” are the value of your labor being transferred away from you, and to the shareholders. When you were self employed, you were the shareholder; you received the value of your labor. When you are part of a co-op, you are also a shareholder. You are more “self-employed” than a worker for a megacorp.
but the whole society would be poorer
Elaborate, please. The only people who would be poorer are people who put in no work, but expect to be paid anyway: the shareholders in a capitalist society.
The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
Nothing I described requires government involvement in business operations. What I described is a simple “partnership” business model: each of the partners is entitled to a share of the company profits. Government does not define a partnership; the partners do.
The government’s involvement is not in the operation, but merely in the incentivization. Tax code could be structured to favor a broad base of owners, and punitively discourage billion-dollar companies from being solely or majority owned by single entities.
Sorry what I said was confusing. I worked the corporate job for 40 hours, then worked 30-40 hours on my own thing.
Negative things - people would complain and I would get no benefit to working hard, just like
The whole society is poorer because people like me would work half the hours at half the effort.
If you guys can do businesses in a way where everything is censual, then good on you, please do that. The issue you will find in partnerships is that people word at different levels and differently, and the direct benefit is just not there the more the partnership is diluted.
China is not, its controlled by a centralized party but it lets people do their own thing. I noticed you didnt mention Cuba as a great example of communism, “Because sanctions they cant get ahead!!!” You should check out the vox video on how well their system works.
Because the harder I work it doesnt directly benefit me, it benefits all the owners. So I would not be incentivized to work harder or longer because I dont get the direct benefit.
How to say you have no clue how the system in China works.
Cuba has been fucked over by the US regime since the revolution dummy.
Owning your own business doesn’t benefit you. Just how dumb are you exactly?
China is not communist… You literally dont undestand what any of these systems are. All you do is insult and say nothing.
How does owning my own business not benefit me? I am one of those rich people you are jealous of.
says the guy who’s been flaunting his ignorance here. 😂
Oh now I see, you’re an exploiter scumbag who owns a capitalist business. Everything makes sense now.
China is communist, you can keep repeating the idea they are, but you are wrong.
I retired in my 30s using only my labor and no one elses. How does owning my own business not benefit me?
I’m not wrong, but you keep on believing whatever you want.
I’m sure you did.
You can not beleive me, but retiring in your 30s is not impossible if you work really hard. Did you notice how you dont answer any of my questions?
What I noticed is that you have really poor reading comprehension because I answered your questions repeatedly. You just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over like a broken record without actually addressing anything I said. It’s like talking to a bot.
Please quote what your answer was because I have not seen anything that relates to an answer.
Correct. Now, apply that exact same analysis to the capitalist company.
The average worker earns $34/hr. Let’s say you work for a company that employs 10 people.
At 9am, you produce $40 profit for the company, as does every other employee. For that, you each receive $34, and the shareholders receive $60.
At 10am, all the other workers produce $40 for the company, but you produce $4000. Company grosses $4360, pays out $340 in payroll, and keeps $4020 in profit.
Simple, right? You gave the company an hour; you received an hour’s pay. You don’t have a claim to the company profits; those belong to the shareholders. Your claim is $68 for those two hours of work, not the value of what you produce. That’s capitalism.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under socialism, as a worker, you are also a shareholder in the company.
Under socialism, your claim is $68 for the two hours of work, plus 1/10th of the company profits. You receive $34 + $6 for 9am, and $34 + $402 for 10am.
Fwiw, I don’t agree with the idea of state-owned businesses. But, I do believe that most businesses should operate as partnerships or co-ops, where the people doing the work are also the owners, and entitled to their fair share of the company’s profits.
As an owner, if you see me freeloading on the factory floor, you can petition the other owners to have me fired. If you’re the only one putting in any work, you can demand the rest of us pay you better, or you can quit.
I understand what you are saying but there are two important factors that change the whole story. The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
The second thing is under a socialistic structure the amount of overall wealth will be reduced. I had two jobs, I worked for Megacorp as an engineer, and I renovated houses. I personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked, I would not have done it. Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
All this to say that sure the worker could get more money, but the whole society would be poorer so it is a bad exchange.
No, I don’t think you do. The reason I don’t think you do is because you made this criticism:
How would that play out in the scenarios I described?
You would have earned $34/he for the first 40 hours, then $51/hr for the overtime. You would have received the direct, time-and-a-half pay for your labor.
But then, you don’t have an external shareholder to pay: you get a fair share of the company profits. Not just what you produced, but what the company produced.
I didn’t adequately define a method for determining a fair share. I assumed every worker was working the same number of hours, so there was no need to consider workaholics like yourself.
But the solution is simple: each worker receives $34/hr straight time, $51/hr overtime, just as we do it now. Additionally, each worker receives 1 share for each hour of their labor, and the company periodically buys back those shares by evenly dividing the profits earned during that period. Your regular co-workers earn 40 shares a week; you, the workaholic, earn 70 or 80 shares.
Your criticism that you don’t get the direct benefit of your labor is simply wrong: you still earn your hourly wage, you just also earn a profit when the company does.
Exactly: those “negative things” are the value of your labor being transferred away from you, and to the shareholders. When you were self employed, you were the shareholder; you received the value of your labor. When you are part of a co-op, you are also a shareholder. You are more “self-employed” than a worker for a megacorp.
Elaborate, please. The only people who would be poorer are people who put in no work, but expect to be paid anyway: the shareholders in a capitalist society.
Nothing I described requires government involvement in business operations. What I described is a simple “partnership” business model: each of the partners is entitled to a share of the company profits. Government does not define a partnership; the partners do.
The government’s involvement is not in the operation, but merely in the incentivization. Tax code could be structured to favor a broad base of owners, and punitively discourage billion-dollar companies from being solely or majority owned by single entities.
Sorry what I said was confusing. I worked the corporate job for 40 hours, then worked 30-40 hours on my own thing.
Negative things - people would complain and I would get no benefit to working hard, just like
The whole society is poorer because people like me would work half the hours at half the effort.
If you guys can do businesses in a way where everything is censual, then good on you, please do that. The issue you will find in partnerships is that people word at different levels and differently, and the direct benefit is just not there the more the partnership is diluted.