Portrait of a 47% moocher

[Jayjay]

It's a voluntary "dictatorship", with agreed upon terms

Uh huh, and the gal trapped in a burning house whose only source of rescue says he'll do it only if she lets him put it in her butt is just voluntarily accepting agreed upon terms.

The analogy fails because employers are not typically the "only source of rescue".

 

[untermensche]

Just give me your defense of dictatorship first.

Why is it so bad in government yet so good in real people's lives in the workplace?

It's a voluntary "dictatorship", with agreed upon terms, that can be terminated unilaterally should the terms no longer be beneficial or if there is something better next door.

Government dictatorship, however, is forced upon without the individuals concent, with guns pointed at you if you dare try to escape to another country, who may also have guns pointed at you if you try to enter. How you fail to understand these crucial differences explains a lot about your mindset.

The reason why it is not best to always make every decision democratic is because there are times when certain people really do have more expertise in the subject matter at hand and there are times when incentives involved are not best aligned.

It is voluntary if one could easily find an alternative.

If all one has is a choice between different dictatorships then there is nothing voluntary about it.

It is a system of coercion where the lack of real choices forces most to enter into a dictatorship.

 

[ksen]

Uh huh, and the gal trapped in a burning house whose only source of rescue says he'll do it only if she lets him put it in her butt is just voluntarily accepting agreed upon terms.

The analogy fails because employers are not typically the "only source of rescue".

That's true for now but the guys wanting to put it in her butt are busily trying to do away with any other source of rescue.

 

[Jayjay]

The analogy fails because employers are not typically the "only source of rescue".

That's true for now but the guys wanting to put it in her butt are busily trying to do away with any other source of rescue.

The original question was, why is it ok for individual companies to not be democratic, but it is a good idea for government. And this example shows why. If you have multiple rescuers competing with each other, not any single one of them can dictate its terms. And if they refuse to compete, you can go above their heads. The end result is an efficient fire department that only asks to put it in her butt a little bit, but only on Valentine's day, and with plenty of lube.

 

[bilby]

lol

This seems like a silly issue to question. The average person today will quit for a better job 20 times during her career. It's extremely difficult to leave the country of your birth.

I disagree. It is less common; but not more difficult, in my experience.

I emigrated to Australia, which is one of the more difficult countries for a foreigner to become a citizen, and it was a protracted and bureaucratic process, but not notably harder than applying for full time work at a large corporation - the forms and interviews are easier, but the process takes longer overall. The medical is a little more thorough, but the qualifications required are less stringent than most professionals require - they let people in to this country without even asking for a Bachelor's degree.

If you are born in the USA, then emigrating to Mexico would likely be easier than getting hired at your local McDonalds.

 

[Bomb#20]

But let's say each company gets half the capital. Let's say that after a year one company has done better financially and distributed the profits among its workers. The other company invested the capital in a worse way and their workers are getting paid less. So in the next round, when more capital is again available (from whichever magic fountain the original capital came from), should both of them still get exactly 50% despite the fact that one company has better track record in investing capital and improving the wages of workers than the other?

You are simply stuck in a capitalist dog eat dog mentality.

There's nothing "dog eat dog" about the capitalist mentality. When you do better than the firm across the street and customers come to you instead of to them, you aren't deriving nutrition from the other firm, as though "its" former customers belonged to it, like body parts. You and your new customers are simply living your lives without carrying the other firm as a burden.

In a worker run system the better companies share knowledge with the weaker companies in attempts to make them stronger.

It is not about total domination.

It is about trying to have as many good companies and therefore as many good jobs as possible.

That's make believe. In a worker-run system the better companies keep their trade secrets to themselves in order to retain their competitive advantages, keep the customers coming, and thereby pay themselves better than than the weaker companies can afford to pay. Likewise, they invest their profits not in having as many good jobs as possible, either by sharing with the weaker companies or by mass hiring, but in growing their business faster than their headcount: by increasing their capital/worker ratio, so they can supplement the market wage for their labor with the market return on investment. They act, in short, precisely like partnerships of little capitalists.

This behavior gravely disappoints the so-called "anarchists" who brought about the worker-run system. They went to all that effort and struggle and revolution or political agitation to reorganize the economy around the worker-run business concept, in the sincere hope and faith that it would end the capitalist so-called "dog eat dog" mentality and lead to as many good jobs as possible and an explosion of selfless sharing; and now they see nothing of the sort happens. At this point they have two choices. They can grow the first speck of critical thought and intellectual integrity in their lives and admit to themselves that their theory was wrong, or else they can find a scapegoat to blame the outcome on. Inevitably, they do the latter. And they do not have far to seek for a plausible scapegoat: it's all those selfish workers at the better companies.

So at this point, in order to strip those scapegoats of their ability to selfishly keep their trade secrets and profits and capital all for themselves, they redefine "worker control" to mean, not each company being run by the workers at that company, but instead, all companies being run by all workers collectively. Of course, having the workers in one company vote on all the policy decisions for that company is feasible as long as the company isn't too big; but having the workers at each company vote on all the completely different companies' policy decisions is utterly impractical. So instead of direct democracy, the so-called "anarchists" will resort to representative democracy -- workers will be told that in lieu of running their own company they instead may elect delegates to a central policy-making body, which will make the actual decisions about policy for each company and order each company's workers to share their knowledge and capital. Because the truth is, the self-styled "anarchists" actually care a hell of a lot more about sharing and equality and having as many good jobs as possible than they care about anarchism.

So the end game for a "worker-run system" is that workers are still taking orders, still having their wages and working conditions set by somebody else, still told who's hired and fired, and still having a cut of what they produce handed over to people who didn't do any of the work. So what's the substantive difference between that and capitalism? Mainly this: in capitalism, there are thousands of different committees giving orders and receiving a cut of production; in the "worker-run system" end game, there's only one committee. Nice work, "anarchists". You've shut down the market where in order to get workers, buyers have to compete with one other by offering better wages and working conditions than the outfit across the street, and you've made everybody move into your newly created "company town" where there's only one buyer, so workers have no choice but to sell their labor to that one buyer on whatever terms it decides.

 

[Axulus]

This behavior gravely disappoints the so-called "anarchists" who brought about the worker-run system. They went to all that effort and struggle and revolution or political agitation to reorganize the economy around the worker-run business concept, in the sincere hope and faith that it would end the capitalist so-called "dog eat dog" mentality and lead to as many good jobs as possible and an explosion of selfless sharing; and now they see nothing of the sort happens. At this point they have two choices. They can grow the first speck of critical thought and intellectual integrity in their lives and admit to themselves that their theory was wrong, or else they can find a scapegoat to blame the outcome on. Inevitably, they do the latter. And they do not have far to seek for a plausible scapegoat: it's all those selfish workers at the better companies.

Good post. The other scapegoat often trotted out is that the anarchist experiments or other similar experiments are always brutally crushed militarily by the capitalist systems because they don't want the competition. Conspiratorial thinking.

 

[Underseer]

This behavior gravely disappoints the so-called "anarchists" who brought about the worker-run system. They went to all that effort and struggle and revolution or political agitation to reorganize the economy around the worker-run business concept, in the sincere hope and faith that it would end the capitalist so-called "dog eat dog" mentality and lead to as many good jobs as possible and an explosion of selfless sharing; and now they see nothing of the sort happens. At this point they have two choices. They can grow the first speck of critical thought and intellectual integrity in their lives and admit to themselves that their theory was wrong, or else they can find a scapegoat to blame the outcome on. Inevitably, they do the latter. And they do not have far to seek for a plausible scapegoat: it's all those selfish workers at the better companies.

Good post. The other scapegoat often trotted out is that the anarchist experiments or other similar experiments are always brutally crushed militarily by the capitalist systems because they don't want the competition. Conspiratorial thinking.

Ah, so those who fail to worship the aristocracy are anarchists now? I thought we were all communists.

Well, I'd like to stay and chat, but I have to participate in a variety of sinister conspiracies against the aristocracy. Ciao!

 

[Bomb#20]

Good post. The other scapegoat often trotted out is that the anarchist experiments or other similar experiments are always brutally crushed militarily by the capitalist systems because they don't want the competition. Conspiratorial thinking.

Ah, so those who fail to worship the aristocracy are anarchists now? I thought we were all communists.

Well, I'd like to stay and chat, but I have to participate in a variety of sinister conspiracies against the aristocracy. Ciao!

You say that as though "anarchist" is a pejorative applied to you non-worshipers by your enemies. Have you somehow been paying so little attention that you're unaware it's a self-label? It's what people who want to abolish investor control and turn all the companies into workers' co-ops normally call their position. untermensche even capitalizes it.

Oh, and fyi, the difference between self-labeled anarchists and self-labeled communists is that the communists typically are already aware of the practicalities I pointed out and just want to skip the whole workers' co-op phase and go directly to having the state direct the economy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The workplace is not a dictatorship--you can vote with your feet.

Then no country is a dictatorship.

Dictatorship is a power structure.

I've been in a lot of countries, including behind the Iron Curtain. Dictatorships are generally recognizable by the effort expended at the border to keep people from leaving. They're also generally much more restrictive about who they let in.

Free countries: They'll look at your passport, they'll look at your visa if one is required. They'll generally stamp the passport. They may copy some information into their systems (this is much more common now with computers.) That's generally it. Baggage will sometimes be inspected for agricultural reasons. Denials of admission are normally only because you're a criminal or because they think you don't plan to leave.

Dictatorships: They'll inspect your passport for evidence that it's fake. Baggage is often inspected for content. The whole process is much slower. Denials of admission are frequent based on non-criminal characteristics. (For example, you'll have a hard time getting a Chinese visa if you work for any news outfit.)

 

[untermensche]

You are simply stuck in a capitalist dog eat dog mentality.

There's nothing "dog eat dog" about the capitalist mentality. When you do better than the firm across the street and customers come to you instead of to them, you aren't deriving nutrition from the other firm, as though "its" former customers belonged to it, like body parts. You and your new customers are simply living your lives without carrying the other firm as a burden.

This is the propaganda. So I suppose it is no wonder some swallow it whole.

The dog eat dog mentality describes those at or near the bottom striving to move up. It describes corporations trying to maximize profits.

And the way corporations succeed is not usually by some incredible innovation, although there is a lot of innovating going on. But new innovations are either stolen or bought up by the giants. Samsung and Microsoft come to mind.

But success is usually tied to some kind of relationship with the government. Either a supplier of some kind, a contractor, or by having a government insurance policy, being too big to fail.

This is how countless corporations remain afloat. Not by innovation, by government relationship. The banks, US auto manufacturers, the for-profit prison system, and the countless contractors that supply the US with the materials to wage war nonstop.

And even when there is innovation it is never innovation from the so-called corporate leadership. They exploit innovation from workers to live better than the innovators.

It is a lie that innovation is most rewarded.

The exploitation of innovation is what is most rewarded under capitalism.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's a voluntary "dictatorship", with agreed upon terms

Uh huh, and the gal trapped in a burning house whose only source of rescue says he'll do it only if she lets him put it in her butt is just voluntarily accepting agreed upon terms.

Wow! Didn't expect you to go there. But, tally-ho!

 

[arkirk]

He is also extracting as much from his workforce as possible to provide that return.

Even if that means moving the whole thing to China.

He lives as large as possible by making many live as small as possible.

CEO has to manage all the pieces to provide the value to the customer and drive efficiency. Not something that workers like and why unions don't like it. If it takes one person to change a light bulb that's what is done, not the 3-5 that workers want.

There you go again, Colorado...equating workers to the butts of Pollock jokes. Your description of the cares of a CEO actually is a clear explanation of what can be WRONG with a CEO. Treating the workforce as a "piece" interchangeable at will, and demeaning its importance in service only of the end user and the stockholder.

 

[lpetrich]

As to this alleged unlimited right to quit, it would not exist unless governments persecuted businesses for interfering with that alleged "right". Ever hear of non-compete clauses in employment?

Dealing With Non-Compete Clauses and Agreements

As with all legal documents, each non-compete agreement is different, and thus the best advice for job-seekers is to consult with a labor attorney. The more fair documents try to balance the company's right to protect its investment with the employee's right to work. However, most non-compete agreements favor the employer, and while it may be odd to think about leaving a company, you have not even started working for, the reality of today's labor environment is that job-seekers' average tenure with an employer is shorter and shorter.

And in some cases, the non-compete agreement may not even be valid or enforceable, either because it is too constricting or because of other technicalities. Several states severely restrict the use of non-compete agreements.

Those US states thus have their jackboots on employers' necks on this issue.

Written Employment Contracts: Pros and Cons | Nolo.com warns

An employment contract is not a one-way street. The contract binds both you and the employee, so it limits your flexibility. ...

Another disadvantage of using employment contracts is that they bring with them a special obligation to deal fairly with the employee. In legal terms, this is called the "covenant of good faith and fair dealing." If you end up treating the employee in a way that a judge or jury finds unfair, you may be legally responsible not only for violating the contract, but also for breaching your duty to act in good faith.

In other words, the government's jackboots are squarely on employers' necks. Those who oppose oppressive and burdensome regulations on businesses ought to recognize this horror that they are subject to, that governments do not let employers have the freedom to renege on contracts that they prefer not to honor, while denying employees that freedom.

 

[Bomb#20]

If 2 companies need funds and the funds available are finite then obviously they both get half.

So in the next round, when more capital is again available (from whichever magic fountain the original capital came from), should both of them still get exactly 50% despite the fact that one company has better track record in investing capital and improving the wages of workers than the other?

You are simply stuck in a capitalist dog eat dog mentality.

There's nothing "dog eat dog" about the capitalist mentality. When you do better than the firm across the street and customers come to you instead of to them, you aren't deriving nutrition from the other firm, as though "its" former customers belonged to it, like body parts. You and your new customers are simply living your lives without carrying the other firm as a burden.

This is the propaganda. So I suppose it is no wonder some swallow it whole.

Think about what you're saying. What propaganda am I supposedly swallowing whole? Whom are you claiming I copied that argument from? What media outlet have you even seen make that argument? You simply made an illogical analogy. And what, you think I'm unable to figure out on my own that your analogy makes no sense? You think I need some savant hired by the Koch brothers to tell me the losing company isn't being eaten by the winning company, because I'm too stupid to figure out for myself that the losing company isn't being eaten by the winning company? Do even you believe the losing company is being eaten by the winning company? Surely you don't believe that -- you're not that stupid either. Obviously the winning company would be better off if the losing company never existed in the first place, the opposite from a dog who gets an extra meal as a result of eating another dog. You don't call the mentality Jayjay displayed "dog eat dog" because it's a good analogy for what he said; you only call it that because it's a cliche -- you've already heard capitalism labeled "dog eat dog" a hundred times and you're repeating it out of habit.

The dog eat dog mentality describes those at or near the bottom striving to move up. It describes corporations trying to maximize profits.

You mean those near the bottom striving to move up are the dogs who are getting eaten and the corporations maximizing profits are the dogs doing the eating? So that means you're changing the subject -- you're defending the popular "dog eat dog" label for a completely different reason that has nothing to do with Jayjay's mentality.

And the way corporations succeed is not usually by some incredible innovation, although there is a lot of innovating going on. But new innovations are either stolen or bought up by the giants. ...
And even when there is innovation it is never innovation from the so-called corporate leadership. They exploit innovation from workers to live better than the innovators.

It is a lie that innovation is most rewarded.

The exploitation of innovation is what is most rewarded under capitalism.

Let's suppose that's true. So what? Where did Jayjay say innovation is most rewarded? He said "Organizing people, assessing risks and recognizing opportunities is just as essential." So we have an economy that rewards organizing people, assessing risks and recognizing opportunities more than it rewards innovation. Why is that any more of a problem than the fact that our economy rewards acting talent more than it rewards screenwriting talent? Different services may be just as essential, but get paid different rates because they have different supply and demand curves. Do you think the public would be better off if we ordered movie producers to pay screenwriters more?

 

[Bomb#20]

As to this alleged unlimited right to quit, it would not exist unless governments persecuted businesses for interfering with that alleged "right".

That applies equally to pretty much every right. The right not to be murdered wouldn't exist in the same sense unless governments persecuted murderers; people couldn't exercise an unlimited right to quit until the government persecuted the slavers to death at Appomattox.

Ever hear of non-compete clauses in employment?

Dealing With Non-Compete Clauses and Agreements

Those US states thus have their jackboots on employers' necks on this issue.

You say that as though the universe followed Little Mermaid physics, where signed contracts are a natural phenomenon with the curious property of reflecting energy blasts from kings' tridents and placing quitters under a mystical geas to not take jobs at former employers' competitors. Contracts are simply requests for states to enforce terms. If a state enforced an unfair contract, it would be the state interfering with the right to quit, not the contract. When the state rules that a contract is so constricting that it's unenforceable, that's the state removing its jackboot from the employee's neck, not placing it on the employer's.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The capitalist is the entrepreneur who risks his own money, and possibly takes a loss, while paying the driver, the tanner, and the cobbler so that the capitalist merchant can sell the resulting shoes elsewhere.

So you are saying that once the capitalist takes the risks, then the tanner, cobbler, and driver should cut him out of the equation?

No, I'm saying they WOULD cut him out. In which case he still isn't a capitalist. SHOULD has bugger all to do with it. If the shoes sell, they could do the rudimentary admin' from which he wanted to skim a profit themselves or employ a clerk if he demanded any more than a clerk's wage. They'd be the "petty-bourgeois" capitalists and your merchant would remain a merchant. Unless he's exploiting some other advantage like information asymmetry.

The problem is, cutting him out also cuts out him taking on the risks of the venure.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

The scale is irrelevant. If the capitalist of the factory is a moocher, so is the capitalist of my example.

In my scenario who keep what essential thing from which essential people?

In your scenario obviously capital is needed.

There is not a supply of capital to help new businesses.

That is what is needed, not a person who wants something but contributes no work.

What work did he contribute? By the logic you provide, all he contributed was money. Also, what would you say is a fair compensation for his risking his capital?

 

[Canard DuJour]

No, I'm saying they WOULD cut him out. In which case he still isn't a capitalist. SHOULD has bugger all to do with it. If the shoes sell, they could do the rudimentary admin' from which he wanted to skim a profit themselves or employ a clerk if he demanded any more than a clerk's wage. They'd be the "petty-bourgeois" capitalists and your merchant would remain a merchant. Unless he's exploiting some other advantage like information asymmetry.

The problem is, cutting him out also cuts out him taking on the risks of the venure.

Nah, they'd cut him out if the shoes sell. If you're saying he therefore probably wouldn't make the offer he makes in your scenario, I agree. That's the point.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

The scale is irrelevant. If the capitalist of the factory is a moocher, so is the capitalist of my example.

I said nothing about "moochers" and there isn't a capitalist in your example.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The problem is, cutting him out also cuts out him taking on the risks of the venure.

Nah, they'd cut him out if the shoes sell. If you're saying he therefore probably wouldn't make the offer he makes in your scenario, I agree. That's the point.

No, I mean you're saying they're willing to take all the risks the entrepreneur was willing to take. Unless you believe business is static, and once the shoes start selling they will always continue to sell, and that nobody else will ever come along and say "here is a new model, cheaper and better."

Cutting him out means cutting out the risk taker. It doesn't mean he won't invest because they'll cut him out. It means if they cut him out then all the risks are on them now.

Merchants like yours evolved into capitalists with the advent of steam powered factories which out-produced the artisans by orders of magnitude. Then they exploited the fuck out of people.

The scale is irrelevant. If the capitalist of the factory is a moocher, so is the capitalist of my example.

I said nothing about "moochers" and there isn't a capitalist in your example.

From page 12, my original scenario.

Along comes an entrepreneur. He sees this mess and say "I will use my personal money to cover these transactions. I will purchase the leather at point A, hire the driver to transport the leather to point B, hire the cobbler to work the leather into shoes, hire the driver to transport the shoes to point C, and sell the shoes at point C. If I guess correctly there is a market at point C and I will recoup my investment and also make a profit. If I guess incorrectly, I am the only one who loses money; the tanner, the driver, and the cobbler all get paid."

I suppose if one is using some very special definition of the word "capitalist" one could then claim there isn't one, but no regularly used definition fits your statement of how there isn't one.

 

[untermensche]

There's nothing "dog eat dog" about the capitalist mentality. When you do better than the firm across the street and customers come to you instead of to them, you aren't deriving nutrition from the other firm, as though "its" former customers belonged to it, like body parts. You and your new customers are simply living your lives without carrying the other firm as a burden.

This is the propaganda. So I suppose it is no wonder some swallow it whole.

Think about what you're saying. What propaganda am I supposedly swallowing whole? Whom are you claiming I copied that argument from? What media outlet have you even seen make that argument? You simply made an illogical analogy.

The propaganda is that corporations rise and fall based on the superiority of their ideas.

That is a minor factor and sometimes really superior ideas do arise, but not very often.

Corporations usually rise by selling the same damn idea as the other guy, or even an inferior idea, but selling it better. It is showmanship and manipulation of customers.

The corporation that sells envelopes. Is it the great envelope innovation that puts it over the top?

But in a state capitalist system like the US system the corporations that do the best either innovate at the request of the government, make the government a customer, or in the case of too big to fail, get a free insurance policy from the government.