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.
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.