Let's Debate Inequality

[Watchmen]

Nearly no other economic system has been tried after the rise of capitalism though, and even when tried only in a few countries.

Funny

 

[Koldo]

That's called "profit sharing"; this is done with many companies.

It is called PLR (Participação nos Lucros ou Resultados) here in Brazil. But neither of them are quite I am quite what I am talking about...

Usually this is done in leu of wages. I worked for such a company once many years ago; they paid $8 per hour, but other companies in the area paid $10 per hour for the same work but they didn't offer profit sharing. The first 2 years the company made huge profits and I got a huge profit sharing check at the end of the year; then the next 2 years profits were lagging, and I got a very small profit sharing check. Eventually I found it better to work for the other company that paid $10 per hour because I couldn't afford to take a chance of less pay unless the company starts turning a profit

The issue is that you had no say on how the company would operate. Like that, the owner/CEO could, for example, take higher risks at your paycheck's expense. The context of this conversation though is about allowing employees to have a more active role when it comes down to directing the company.

 

[Koldo]

Funny

What's funny about that?

 

[Kfox]

You don't follow the news? Justice Thomas has got gifts amounting to more than one million from a guy named Harlan Crow. He may face investigations, but it is questionable if he will be removed from the court - or when.
This bribery may or may not be found to be illegal, but bribing politicians with campaign contributions is not illegal (and thus, technically not bribery), but it is a deeply questionable praxis in a democracy.

Democrats Seek Criminal Investigation of Justice Thomas Over Travel and Gifts

It is my understanding Thomas and Crow were friends for a long time, before Thomas became Supreme Court Judge.

 

[Kfox]

It is called PLR (Participação nos Lucros ou Resultados) here in Brazil. But neither of them are quite I am quite what I am talking about...



The issue is that you had no say on how the company would operate.

Yes they do, they can vote like any other shareholder.

Like that, the owner/CEO could, for example, take higher risks at your paycheck's expense.

Yes! That's what he's paid to do.

The context of this conversation though is about allowing employees to have a more active role when it comes down to directing the company.

Whaaattt??? Why on earth would you allow employees who have no clue (or care) on how to run a company, and give them the authority to run it into the ground? Why would someone start a business knowing someday they are gonna be forced to turn it over to a bunch of people who don't have their vision, views, or ideas of how the company should be run? This would force managers to hire employees based on their political opinions, their economic views, and a whole bunch of other things other than their ability to do the job. This sounds completely insane to me; PLEASE; make this make sense to me, because I'm just not getting it!

 

[sayak83]

Motivation science is more nuanced than that.

First off, it's almost certainly the case that a lot of businesses are started by emotionally unhealthy people. Narcissists, psychopaths, sociopaths and so on. So let's set that group aside for now.

When we're talking about why emotionally healthy people start businesses, "getting rich" is actually a fairly fragile and poor motivator. Healthy people want to pursue being excellent at things and becoming excellent at things. One manifestation of this is what's known as being in the "flow state". The flow state can happen to anyone who's labored to become good at a difficult, open-ended activity. It can be cooking or painting or chess or programming or playing a musical instrument or making a business successful.

Motivation scientists call this form of motivation, "intrinsic", and it's the most robust and compelling type of motivation for emotionally healthy people. (Animals as well, fwiw.)

==

So any economic system that ignores intrinsic motivation is doomed to fail. Whatever solutions we cook up MUST find ways to reward invention and innovation. The good news is that these rewards don't have to be as ridiculous as the kinds of rewards that the 1% are experiencing these days. In the 50s, many super successful people were paying taxes well over 70% and were quite happy.

==

We also have to find economic solutions that don't depend on the myth of endless growth, but that's a different topic.

I agree. But there has to be rewards in terms of either wealth or recognition of excellence (or both). And, the excellence must be recognised through meritocratic competition. But this can exist side by side with strong progressive taxation and wealth redistribution so that wealth inequality is reduced.

 

[sayak83]

People start businesses for a lot of reasons besides "getting rich". And socialism does not stop anyone from getting rich. It stops them from getting rich at the expense of everyone else involved in the business enterprise.

Yeah, that's the big lie the capitalists have been telling forever. But the truth is that competition is insanely wasteful and aims to create "winners" and "losers". Whereas mutual cooperation is far more efficient and intelligent and aims to increase everyone's well-being collectively.

As an artist I can assure that artists are not competing with each other. The capitalists that exploit their work for profit will happily pit them against each other, but the artists are not. People that strive for excellence will do so in whatever pursuit they are engaged in, because it's in their nature. Not because they want to outdo someone else. Or just to get rich.

Catastrophizing is the second big lie the capitalists are constantly telling us. As if the only alternative to capitalist greed running amok is a totalitarianism dictatorship. It's not. Socialism is not a dictatorship of any kind.

Most power is concentrated in the hands of the capitalists. The politicians are just their paid toadies. But this is the third big lie the capitalists keep telling us over and over and over ... that it's the government that constantly screwing us, NEVER the capitalists. When it fact it is always the capitalists.

Exactly as their capitalist overlords want them to do.

With all due respect, the solution to capitalist oligarchy is not government autocracy. Having experienced both, I can well attest that both are equally bad.

But let's break this down a little bit.
In a socialist system like the way you envisage, how does a person becomes rich?
Suppose I am organizing a concert and 10 artists can perform in it. If there is no competition between prospective entrants (auditions that is), how do I choose these 10 artists. By lottery?
Let us assume that the government has monopolised production and are selling 5 types of computers...all of which are found to be poor in quality and workmanship. How does a consumer go about forcing the government to make better computers? Wait for 5 years for the vote??
What you do not understand is that when the govt controls the means of production, the big capitalists will be the govt. Elon Musk will not just be a funder of a party, he will be the party president. The solution is never the concentration of power in one thing, as power can never be controlled, the more it concentrates, the more it dominates. The solution is the distribution of power into multiple competing systems and organs so that none can dominate.

 

[an anarchist]

There is no fixed number. It all depends on how costly it is to bribe government officials. Nobody should be able to buy a decision that only benefits the briber (and their friends) and hurts others. That should take into account the risk involved in bribing. In the US, make bribery illegal again, and that "too wealthy" number goes up again. But when you can buy a Supreme Court Justice for a few million dollars without repercussion for you or the Justice, you shouldn't have the few millions in the first place.

I'm of the opinion we get rid of the positions that can contain people who can be bribed in the first place. But I'm not here to talk about how Ancapistan would work (a hypothetical scenario where there is no "government" to bribe).

Just wanted to throw the thought out there that perhaps there shouldn't be anyone to bribe.

 

[Koldo]

Yes they do, they can vote like any other shareholder.

The employees? Can you provide a source for that? By chance, aren't you mixing up profit sharing with ESOP?

Yes! That's what he's paid to do.

And that's THE problem.

Whaaattt??? Why on earth would you allow employees who have no clue (or care) on how to run a company, and give them the authority to run it into the ground? Why would someone start a business knowing someday they are gonna be forced to turn it over to a bunch of people who don't have their vision, views, or ideas of how the company should be run? This would force managers to hire employees based on their political opinions, their economic views, and a whole bunch of other things other than their ability to do the job. This sounds completely insane to me; PLEASE; make this make sense to me, because I'm just not getting it!

What are you talking about?
I have never mentioned giving complete authority over to the employees.

 

[Augustus]

And with a 100% estate tax,

This would be an awful idea. Being able to pass things on to the next generation is a key part of human psychology (at least for many people)

It would randomly drop children into poverty depending on when the family breadwinners died.

Would just encourage wasteful spending and consumption as “you can’t take it with you”.

Family heirlooms and treasured mementos of loved ones would frequently be beyond people's means to keep.

Wealthy people would be better placed to offshore their wealth and keep it, so it would still be very unequal.

Rural communities would be destroyed as farms and the like couldn’t stay in the family. You’d also encourage non-sustainable practices as it’s only a short term “lease” rather than real ownership.

Family owned companies would significantly decline as why struggle to set something up just for someone else to benefit it you are successful?

Would be lots of unintended consequences, short termism, social disconnection etc.

 

[Koldo]

But there has to be rewards in terms of either wealth or recognition of excellence (or both). And, the excellence must be recognised through meritocratic competition.

Meritocratic competitions don't tend to happen under capitalism though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Contrary to what @Revoltingest may say about me, I'm not a socialist. I'm all for reigning in capitalism and more equality, but I prefer a mixed economy (with more socialist contribution than we have now).
And with a 100% estate tax, the government would gain possession of the means of production automatically - which they could then distribute to the workers.

I'm away from Revoltistan.
I didn't recall if you're a socialist or not.
But you sure do sound like one with
your plan to take the means of production
away from private owners to give away to
those who never earned it. **** that ****.

 

[Kfox]

I'm of the opinion we get rid of the positions that can contain people who can be bribed in the first place. But I'm not here to talk about how Ancapistan would work (a hypothetical scenario where there is no "government" to bribe).

Just wanted to throw the thought out there that perhaps there shouldn't be anyone to bribe.

Sounds like anarchy. The problem with anarchy, is when you get rid of government control, gang control will always take over; and the problem with gang control is, might always means right

 

[Kfox]

And that's THE problem.

Why is hiring a CEO to run the business a problem?

What are you talking about?
I have never mentioned giving complete authority over to the employees.

Why would you want to give ANY control over to the employees who have no idea on how a company should be run?

 

[an anarchist]

Sounds like anarchy. The problem with anarchy, is when you get rid of government control, gang control will always take over; and the problem with gang control is, might always means right

What if government is the gang? It sounds like the hypothetical scenario you used to describe anarchy is already happening absent of anarchism. We currently live in a world where might makes right, so your logic is invalid

 

[Kfox]

What if government is the gang? It sounds like the hypothetical scenario you used to describe anarchy is already happening absent of anarchism. We currently live in a world where might makes right, so your logic is invalid

Gangs are not voted into positions by the people they rule over.

 

[Heyo]

It is my understanding Thomas and Crow were friends for a long time, before Thomas became Supreme Court Judge.

A very telling answer. You like corruption, don't you?

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, it is.
The Bankers benefit from seigniorage in the poorest countries, also through the IMF.
The banking system enormously benefit from such a legalized usury, and their money will be probably spent in brothels and casinos.

 

[Heyo]

The employees? Can you provide a source for that? By chance, aren't you mixing up profit sharing with ESOP?

I tried to find something on the net but wasn't successful, so I asked ChatGPT:

Voting Power through 401(k) Plans:
In most cases, stock ownership through 401(k) plans does not grant direct voting power to individual employees. The voting rights are typically exercised by the investment fund managers who hold the stocks on behalf of the workers. Only direct stockholders, as in those who own shares outside of a 401(k), typically get to vote on company matters.

---

In summary, while many U.S. workers own some company stock, especially through 401(k) plans, their direct voting power is usually limited. In cases like ESOPs or when they hold stock options, employees may have more influence over major company decisions.

I also like to see @Kfox' sources.

 

[Heyo]

This would be an awful idea. Being able to pass things on to the next generation is a key part of human psychology (at least for many people)

Yes, I see otherwise rational people defend tribalism over equality with bad arguments, so there must be a strong emotional connection.

It would randomly drop children into poverty depending on when the family breadwinners died.

It would put everybody in the same starting position, independent from a rich daddy.

Would just encourage wasteful spending and consumption as “you can’t take it with you”.

Which is good for the economy.

Family heirlooms and treasured mementos of loved ones would frequently be beyond people's means to keep.

Especially when those treasured mementos have a high monetary value.

Wealthy people would be better placed to offshore their wealth and keep it, so it would still be very unequal.

People will do crimes anyway, so why bother to make laws.

Rural communities would be destroyed as farms and the like couldn’t stay in the family.

Get a master in agriculture and hired as CEO of the family business.

Family owned companies would significantly decline as why struggle to set something up just for someone else to benefit it you are successful?

Would be lots of unintended consequences, short termism, social disconnection etc.

Do the unintended consequences outweigh the intended consequences? How high do you value equality?