You're viewing a single thread.
Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
I hate markets
Wouldn't that be communism? Genuinely asking
Permanently Deleted
Within the context of one person's career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people's relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you've all done too well and it's to "cut labor costs" while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you'd gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won't have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it's something much easier for liberals to stomach.
Not saying I'm in favor of it, but there's still market socialism out there as a political stance
The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.
It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.
I think the better way would be a centrally planned economy for some goods (electricity, "normal" food, health, ...) and something more "free" for the rest of the market. Bread has a marked price but a PS5 doesn't.
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.
I'm confused, isn't criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?
No, it broadens and deepens understanding.
Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.
No, it broadens and deepens understanding
How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: "Thing bad" doesn't broaden or deepen anything. "Thing has specific shortcomings which aren't present in specific alternative to thing" is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
"thing has specific shortcomings" is a useful criticism.
Not always, sometimes it's just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there's some alternative that doesn't have those shortcomings, those aren't useful observations, they're pointless complaints.
youre wrong.
if we're talking about the input requirements of some engine to drive its load and those don't match then "yells in thermodynamics" is an incredibly useful criticism.
if we're talking about a project that relies on one person then discussing their mortality is an incredibly useful criticism.
in this case, the thing we're talking about is markets and the comment youre accusing of being a pointless complaint is
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
which is an absolutely useful criticism. relying on markets to pass information is a holdover from before we had better methods to do so. the most profitable companies now use data outside the marketplace to make decisions to the point of developing enormous networks to collect, store, parse, interpret and disseminate that information. Cybersyn, the socialist version of this technology, allowed such powerful subversion of american plots against Chile that the only alternative was a fascist military coup.
so it's not a pointless complaint, but an accurate distillation of criticism most recently offered up to the american public eye as the book The Peoples Republic of Walmart.
I, a socialist don't. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we're slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.
Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it's not like I expected more from the community based around memes
So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?
If this isn't true, why do think markets serve no purpose?
Do you really think all exchange of goods is a market?
Yes. Do you not?
So Christmas gifts are a market?
No because I don't give you a gift only if you give me one. It's not a transaction. They are gifts.
...but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it's a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can't occur then you're relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.
The alternative is you're expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There's little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.
Hunger is such a poor motivator.
The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that it has a boss
So every company remodeled after REI, got it.
Permanently Deleted
Marxists do hate Markets though
We love oversimplifying generalizations that make us look like absolute buffoons though.
At least according to trustworthy sources, i.e. your gut feeling.
/s
Permanently Deleted
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn't work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
/s
Permanently Deleted
labor vouchers
Or as normal people call it, "money"
Permanently Deleted
How would that even work.
It's very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren't on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don't want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan's comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
Under capitalism automation benefits the owners (on a small timescale, they worsen the totroptf) under socialism time saving just means the population has more time.
That is why workers currently push against automation under capitalism.
Not a market socialist though, just a socialist.
Are people investing in new automation currently because I've been using the same crappy tools for over 10 years now and they keep getting crappier.
Oh yeah we automate creative work now, the one thing that could still be a cheap hobby.
If worker-owned workplaces still operate within a market, there will still be pressure to compete with other companies. People can still come up with new ideas to compete and change can still happen.
They can do that under capitalism. Several companies are owned by their workers. Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal
Give an example. That is hyperbolic as hell since there are several successful ones out there.
Permanently Deleted
Bezos had to start off somewhere. People get overly fixated with billionaires and I have no idea why. His wealth is based on the value of Amazon. He doesn't really have much money. If Amazon went BK tomorrow he would have next to nothing.
Winco is an interesting story. Here is an article on it.
Bezos had to start off somewhere.
Just a small loan of a quarter million dollars from his parents to bail out his failing company, which one would be hard-pressed to imagine he would have even had that much success in founding if not for his wealthy parents supporting his upbringing as they did.
And 50K for 19 other people. That is how capitalism works.
Wealthy? I grew up poor as hell and my parents had that in either retirement accounts, pension accounts and equity. Though I would have never asked them for that since for every Amazon there are hundreds who didn't make it.
Permanently Deleted
I didn’t come from entrenched wealth. I followed the blue print of work hard and smart. I’ve done well.
It’s not hard to make it in capitalism if you stop worrying about what others have and focus on your life. Most people just can’t stop trying to compete with the joneses.
I’ve been to communist countries. I’d much rather live in a capitalist country. Being equally poor and starving doesn’t interest me at all.
This is ironically a poor sales pitch, unless you believe that networking, marketing, and familial wealth should be what orders society.
And I never said that 250k was all they had, and in fact being able to throw that much money at something is going to be less and less of a concern the more money you have, though I don't think his family was "poor as hell" to start with. Unfortunately for this point, their finances at the time are not publicized that I can find.
It’s all part of how society works.
Networking is what has grown my career. People know I deliver and that’s why I make what I make.
I doubt his family was poor as hell but Mine was and could have come up with that. It’s not that much money in the grand scheme of things.
I’m not fan of bezos and still surprised by his success. It’s a model that somehow he got to work and as a business person I don’t like him.
But he didn’t steal profits. The company burns cash like crazy and has brief moments of profitability. Yet people keep buying into the Ponzi scheme.
It’s all part of how society works.
I said should, not does.
But he didn’t steal profits.
Back then, he used a considerable amount of money to run at a loss. Nowadays, he does steal a remarkable level of profits in the unpaid wages of the employees who keep winding up in the news for being forced to piss in bottles or drive to work in a hurricane.
He started out with a small loan of $250,000 from his parents, in 90s $s if memory serves.
You're just a
aren't you? Lazy workers could be billionaires if they just triedIt is possible they could have. You make it sound like 250K is a lot of money. That isn't one half of year of wages.
250k is a lot of money. It was more even more money in the 90s. Its an exceptionally large amount of money to recieve for free straight from your parents.
People don't become billionaires from working. They become billionaires by taking profit from the surplus value of other peoples work.
But you believe in a propagandized version of capitaliam where everyone could equally become a billionaire, its a meritocracy, you're all jealous and lazy of our deserving overlords
250K isn't that much money. Maybe to you but to the average person it isn't.
You don't even get how billionaires are made. LOL. They didn't take the profit from anyone. Amazon doesn't give a dividend.
Their wealth is based on the value of the company which is truly arbitrary. Since people are not expecting to make money from a dividend, it's all made up.
It is why Amazon could drop in value tomorrow if people felt it wasn't going to continue to climb in value. The only way to make money is still sell the shares.
250K isn't that much money. Maybe to you but to the average person it isn't.
Completely out-of-touch.
$250,000 isn't a lot of money to the average person
Thats literally 5-6x the median annual income what the hell are you smoking. That is a life changing amount of money to most of the country.
they didn't take the profit from anyone
They took that profit from the people working there. Profit is the difference between expenses and income. In order to turn a profit companies cannot pay workers what their work earns the company, there has to be a difference. In economic parlance this difference is referred to as surplus value being generated by the workers for the company. If workers were paid what they were worth then the profit margin of that company would be 0% but those people would all be paid more than they are now. Whether you think the workers are entitled to the full value of what they create is an ideological determination that I will judge you for.
Permanently Deleted
If wealth were actually distributed in the US equally that might be true, but as it is it's more than double what most Americans have, even ignoring inflation.
The average net worth of all American families was $746,820, according to the Federal Reserve’s 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, while the median figure was $121,760.
— The Average Net Worth Of Americans—By Age, Education And Ethnicity
The average US worker has a salary of $46,800 (in 2018) before taxes. Assuming they saved everything and spent nothing, it would take over 5 years for them to make 250k. Again, this is before taxes, and without spending anything. For the vast majority of people, 250k is a lot of money.
Assuming you earned a million dollars every year, it would take 1000 years to earn your first billion dollars.
It's not possible to become a billionaire simply through working, as humans do not live that long.
since he deleted it, here's what this loser wrote:
250k isn't that much money. Maybe to you but to the average person it isn't.
You don't even get how billionaires are made. LOL. They didn't take the profit from anyone. Amazon doesn't give a dividend.
Their wealth is based on the value of the company which is truly arbitrary. Since people are not expecting to make money from a dividend, it's all made up.
It is why Amazon could drop in value tomorrow if people felt it wasn't going to continue to climb in value. The only way to make money is still sell the shares.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
I'm legit trying to figure out the logic that determined which of his posts he should delete and which ones he shouldn't. Seems like it's whatever was getting a lot of replies, but also some other random ones for fun?
Where do yhey get the money to buy the business?
I transfer the company over. I wanted to move, and I had made back my capital from running the company. As such, they didn't buy anything. They just took over operations.
Where do they get the business owner who wants to do that? Can it happen? Sure, it has. But thats not going to happen for most bussiness operation in capitalist countries. Can workers get the money to buy out their owners? Sure. But that's not super likely in most situations either.
I know several people who have gifted their business to the employees. It isn't that uncommon. Typically it is people who have families that do not want the business or they don't have a family to give the business too. In my case I was moving and didn't want to try to run it remove. It my friends case the family wanted to retire and had no children..
Don't forget these are not million dollars businesses. We are not talking handing someone a check for 5 million dollars. It is a running, profitable business that they can down.
Cool. Thats several people. Thats not the majority of the capitalist system.
I'm sure this dude is bullshitting literally every single thing he's saying. Anytime someone makes a reasonable reply his immediate response is to demand proof. I would not be surprised if everything this person has said is a lie.
No they want the return on their labor. I get it.
I transferred over about 300k
Could I have sold it? Sure but 300k isn’t life changing to me. If they’d run it right. It could have been to them.
Had it been 5 million, maybe I wouldn’t have handed it over. Though you have more options at that level.
On their labor? Right. The bourgeois are known best as the class that does labor
Sure: becoming a member of a corporation costs money. You either have to pay to get it set up or buy a share to get in so those who already paid are made whole.
Unfortunately, the US as an example, our society is structured such that the majority of people here have zero savings with wages decreasing in value every year due to inflation. A person in this situation cannot produce money to buy-in; squeezing water from a stone situation.
All people are essentially born with no assets, and if they want to secure wealth, they must sell their labor to achieve it.
In other words, children of parents who own an outsized number of assets do not have to sell their labor to achieve it, because it is offset by their parents assets. This inherently produces an unequal/unbalanced system where some people simply never have to work this way. This is why extremely in-demand internships at companies in places like New York City are often unpaid, and thus generally end up going to people who already have money, access, and support systems. Because only those kind of people can afford to take on an unpaid internship to move upward in the capitalist system.
This is also the source of generational poverty, because it can be really hard to escape when generation after generation are born to no assets.
All people are essentially born with no assets
False. The children of rich people are born rich. That's a major part of the problem. It creates dynasties.
This is an area I have said needs to be taxed to hell, there is no good reason we should allow the passing of wealth without heavy penalty. I'm convinced that if we taxed all forms of wealth transfer at something like 80%, we could pretty much get rid of income tax. Income you have earned should be your entitlement, assets passed down to you should be where the taxes cut in.
So, you have to sell off 80% of your dead mother's mementos unless you're rich? Careful—your proposal is good in spirit, but has ugly side effects that need to be carefully avoided.
I'd rather sell off mementos than lose livelihood. We all know the top 1% shelter and live off non income based tax shelters, and then just pass those shelters on through legacies. Given the arbitrary caps on assets your grandmother's Polaroids would likely be safe. You wont see good faith attempts to fix taxes regardless though, as politicians are in the business of making money, so would never go after their own livelihood.
Inflation is a recent event. Historically inflation has been low. I will admit it hasn't phased me much since I make a good income but I really noticed it today at the store. A week of groceries was 250 dollars. That is insane.
Inflation's been happening since currency was created. We don't notice day to day because the effects are stretched over a long period.
Try calculating the value of a 2010 dollar against the current 2023 dollar. You'll find the cumulative effect of ~5% inflation each year is significant.
In addition, periods exist throughout American history during which inflation has spiked noticably within a year or two - this is nowhere near the first time.
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren't there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
Law enforcement?
They are more common than you think. They appear to be grocery stores and engineering firms. Just do a quick google and you will find hundreds of them, many you have heard of.
Did... did I say they couldn't? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.
So ah... What's the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
Did I attack the system in my comment or did I give a bare bones breakdown of what socialism is?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892938
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892727
Maybe even check my other posts in this thread to get a better idea of my opinion on this instead of jumping to conclusions.
They said it in the first comment
they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market
Good luck here lol
The western left doesn't agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
That's a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
Wanting to burn down the system without a coherent and specific approach to replace it only hurts people.
Permanently Deleted
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
Excuses... People always have an excuse for why they didn't do something.
Those lazy commies with their limp wristed excuses like: "The reality of living under a capitalist society". Why don't they just eat some bootstrap stew like my pa did and die of preventable illness generating labor value for someone else?
Permanently Deleted
It’s excuses.
Peets was Starbucks before Starbucks. Yet Starbucks beat them
GM was bigger than Tesla until Tesla beat them.
Walmart was nothing and took on sears.
That’s how the market works.
Permanently Deleted
Massive inefficient redundancies that ended up making rich people money and hurting the poor? Yeah, fuck that.
Wait...so these are your examples of people who "did something"
Do you realize that the edge every single one of these companies had over the others is the willingness to do whatever it takes to extract as much value from labor for the least amount of money, right?
You are just making the case for the complete destruction of capitalism. Only soulless psychopaths are rewarded here. Winning is not beating these people at the same psychotic game that they're playing.
I don't buy into that lame beta theory of extracting labor. You're paid for your labor. If you don't feel you are paid enough, quit. It's that simple. That is the beauty of capitalism. I can sell my labor for what I see fit.
This is the reasoning that leads to "if you think medicines are too expensive, stop buying them" with much the same problem of it not being quite that simple for the majority of humanity, whose "choices" are not as unconstrained as the ones you're familiar with.
It's just how the world works. You want a job. they offer X, you want Y. Don't take it until they offer Y. If they don't offer it, then go somewhere else. Unless you live in a communist country, the worker always has the advantage as there are more jobs than people.
I know you deleted your earlier nonsense, but I saw some of it first, so I know how out of touch you are. You were wrong about how much wealth people have, but even after having that corrected, here you are with "It's just how the world works", another incorrect assertion that might describe your experience of the world, but is unrepresentative for humanity as a whole.
Most people don't have the luxuries you so clearly take for granted. Turning down exploitative employment is only an option for those with money in reserve. Most people do not have that. Going somewhere else means separation from family and friends—easy enough for the thoroughly unlikable, but community is important to most members of a social species. And, anyway, that's assuming there aren't legal restrictions like immigration controls. As I said before, most lives are more constrained than yours, and that isn't because those people are any less deserving. That is how the world works.
I'm going to suggest you read the article "Why Fascism is the Wave of the Future" by Edward Luttwak. Don't worry, it's just a warning, and it starts:—
That capitalism unobstructed by public regulations, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, effective trade unions, cultural inhibitions or kinship obligations is the ultimate engine of economic growth is an old-hat truth
so it's not commie propaganda. But it might relieve you of some of your misconceptions, since you clearly aren't listening to us here. Of course, you could just carry on regardless, but then it'll be just far too clear that you're not acting in good faith.
No one cares if you "buy into" anything. It exists whether you believe it or not.
The entire point of keeping unemployment at certain levels is so capitalists can dictate wages and responsibilities. It's not a secret. Bourgeois media openly panics whenever unemployment levels get too low.
No, it doesn't exist because you claim it's true. It's just silly talk. It is word vomit. I am paid for the work I do and the value I create. If I don't like their offer, I can go somewhere else and make more. I control what I want to make.
I try to tell myself that most of the people bought into capitalism can be rehabilitated, maybe some just need to spend a few years breaking rocks to get it through their heads that other people fucking exist on this planet.
Reading your comments has made me re-evaluate that
I don't buy into that lame beta theory of gravity. You go down. If you don't feel like going down, go up. It's that simple. That is the beauty of jumping. I can jump as high as I want
The problem with notable examples is that they're pretty much never representative examples.
Tesla is not close to bigger than GM. They only make consumer vehicles and maybe a model of semi truck but I don't think that's being produced yet, while GM has been making consumer cars in addition to commercial and military vehicles for decades. They might be valued as more but that doesn't really say anything in practical terms.
Compare market caps. Tesla is much more valuable than gm
Bubbles are fun.
You're asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.
You don't seem like you understand modern capitalism.
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won't bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That's the actual system I see.
What poor people do you think are donating wages to "radical politicians"? Have you ever met any poor people?
I do. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am pointing out they are free to start their own business and compete if they think they can do better.
Nobody thought Sears could be beat and now they're mostly gone.
Starbucks started with a small investment and now look at them.
I think people want to make excuses for everything because they don't want to take the risk or don't know how to run a company. It's easier than actually going out there and doing it. Running a company is hard work. It is a risk. I have done it several times. Never made an ass load of money but I left each one to the employees when I was done. Each one they ran right into the ground.
Wanna loan me $850,000 so I can start my own business? If it works I'll pay you back in 20 years.
What’s the business plan?
Okay I said I was done talking with you but I actually love any excuse to nerd out on this so here:
The state of California has mandated compostable household and business waste be separated out and picked up separately much like recycling is already separated. This is a law that is already in effect; however, they have declined to enforce it so far. They have recently began making statements that they will begin enforcing the law and fining businesses and property owners for not complying.
Many small municipalities (and some big ones) have not even started setting up the infrastructure to do so. They're way behind.
This means there is a captive market for a company providing those services. A potentially huge market.
Now anyone can set up a waste collection service, it's pretty standardized, but here's where my idea is different. A technology called pyrolization.. It mostly requires organic materials, lots of em. In essence, it's burning without fire. The input is organic material, the output is a stable carbon-rich solid called biochar (similar to charcoal except not as flammable), and something called syngas, which is similar to natural gas. With the right machinery, the process produces energy and is carbon-negative.
The carbon-negative aspect is the selling point. Do you know how many carbon-negative businesses there are? You could probably count them, globally, on both hands. This would play EXTREMELY well in California.
Pyrolysis is not a new technology, but applying it at scale is. Currently it's mainly in use as a way of processing human waste. There's a company called BioForceTech in the Bay Area that has a successfully operating pyrolysis machine processing human waste, and they have machines globally that also process feedstock like wood chips and nut shells. Municipal organic waste would require a sorting machine for sure, but other than that it could use their machine just fine. And the sorting machine wouldn't have to be as complex as those in municipal compost systems: if plastic gets mixed into your compost, that's bad. If plastic gets mixed into something you're just going to burn and bury, not a huge deal.
$850,000 is not enough to set something up like this on the municipal level. That would take millions. It's enough to get buy-in from BioForceTech, ReCology (bay area waste management company that has experience with waste-gas powered trucks, and compost sorting machines), investors, and local and state government (the state has several grant and loan programs for "green" businesses, especially in waste collection).
In my opinion the biggest, most profitable market would be Santa Clara County or Alameda County, both in the bay area and both have limited compost pickup presently. But that's a big bite to chew and I think beyond the capabilities of a new business. Something like small towns in Mendocino County would be perfect - small enough that they don't have municipal organics collection aside from maybe yard trimmings, liberal enough that the carbon-negative aspect would play well, rural enough to have plenty of cheap land for a processing facility.
So that's our market. We get to charge customers for the pickup, and then sell the power generated as "clean energy". Not to mention the whole thing functions like a peaker plant. When electricity prices are low, you can adjust the output ratio to create more biochar - adding to the carbon-negative selling point (and getting some money from cap and trade). When electricity prices are high, you can get more syngas and burn it as carbon-neutral energy.
The one thing I'm not very familiar on and would need to consult experts on is the regulations involved in the "selling electricity" aspect. The regulatory burden may make that part not feasible, I just don't know enough about it.
You do not.
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.
The system actively discourages that. It was tried in the 70s. Banks wouldn't work with coops because they were diffrent. Other companies wouldn't work with them because they didn't being as high a ROI. They were more efficient and stable, but under capitalism none of that matters.
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like "there's nothing stopping someone who's born poor from becoming a millionaire". Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there's so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it's almost statistically impossible. It's so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
Not really I grew up poor and I’m a millionaire. It’s not that hard of a bar to cross.
I think you should google how many millionaires there are in America. That number would shock you.
Ok now I know you're a troll. And a liar.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they're a rounding error. I don't think you're one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you're not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you're claiming is so statistically rare, I don't believe you. And then you're also claiming it's common.
Ergo, troll.
I'm done talking with you.
Over 6% of the population. That’s from 2019. I suspect that number is even higher now.
My Uncle Sam paid for my school.
Banks frequently do.
Banks frequently what? I think people don't understand the concept of capitalism. It means somebody has to inject the capital. The bank isn't a charity. Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan. Every company has to start with some form of capital injection but the workers could do it if they wanted. If you and your friend want to compete with Starbucks, nothing is stopping you.
I don't have access to the same network of third world slaves that Starbucks does.
As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It's scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.
What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don't speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you're so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you're trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you're talking about.
Literally everything this person has said about how the coffee industry works has been wrong.
You think Starbucks owns slave labor? Otherwise, my point is solid. They do not.
I never said Starbucks owns the slave labor. But to ignore the influence they have is outstandingly naive. Like, do you think at all before replying? Are you in middle school and have any idea how the real world operates?
So you ignored what was said but felt compelled to say something silly to try to win points? If you are not paying attention to the conversation then say nothing.
What did I ignore? You only had one or two sentences there. I replied to it and pointed out how it's faulty. You'll need to help me out because I think you're using some other form of the English language or dialogue model than the rest of those who speak the language use.
You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics.... right?
They aren't growin em in fuckin Seattle.
Starbucks doesn't own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler..
I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you're still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you're already familiar with this. You're correct in asserting that you're stuck just having to "believe" your sources don't use slave labor, because you're sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.
The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn't very helpful.
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger. If you make a better product then people may choose to go with your product. Coffee isn't a price sensitive product. It is a high margin product. People are not going to Starbucks because they're cheaper.
I don't disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don't want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously "What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee." is majorly hyperbolic if you're aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you're making now.
Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger.
No. It wasn't. Starbucks was a 'first' in many ways. It was prior to third wave. First will always have advantages.
Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
It's so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.
What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?
You just said a lot of something that made zero sense.
You think the people working at Starbucks are slaves?
You clearly don't understand what coffee is or how many hands it has to pass through before it even gets to the barista.
but the workers could do it if they wanted
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it's so stacked against it occurring, it's effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what's stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I'm really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. "Nothing is stopping you." Yeah and "nothing" is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of "nothing". Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it's possible.
WE will never have a third party nor would I want one. We would need 6-10 parties. That is the only way this gets better.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger. You don't. If you are trying to make a living for your coop, you just need to make enough for all of you to do that.
Dutch Brothers is doing well and they're not near the size of Starbbucks. Peets has always done well.
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet's is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
Peers wasn’t started by jab. They were purchased later by jab.
Both have competed with Starbucks.
Actually the guy who started Starbucks worked for Peet’s.
That’s the point. Peet’s was the Starbucks until Starbucks started.
I’ve owned a few coffee places but I focused more on the old coffeehouse experience. It’s a different model entirely.
I may do it again. I always did ok but people want quick service.
You haven't owned coffee places. You've been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You're objectively wrong on coffee production.
Since I never talked about growing coffee or production. I have no clue what you’re babbling about.
All I can tell is you have no clue about coffee at all.
Peet's had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet's and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn't even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.
But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.
You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you're not competing if you aren't actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you're saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.
It’s coffee. It just needs to be coffee. You don’t have to be the largest coffee place. You just kneed to provide the workers a solid income and pay the bills.
Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.
You know the great majority of people don't have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude
Own outright? Or have a mortgage?
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that's still over a third of the population who can't even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they're betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It's not an even playing field, at all.
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
I trust my average coworker much more than the average CEO.
Highly depends on your coworkers. My current coworkers? Yeah they're great, we have two electrical engineers on my team, buncha geniuses.
My last job? Oh man I wouldn't trust those guys as far as I could throw em.
And how did you feel about upper management at that job?
Untrustworthy but at least smart.
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I'm sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they'd be better elployees
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won't fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It's the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don't.
thats because they want addicts (of any variety, not just drugs) cuz their labor is cheap. its a form of exploitation
No, they're just idiots. Myself and others have had the same training and responsibilities and do fine. It's not that difficult of a job.
i shall surely reap the rewards of working at the same level as these irredeemably dumb people. then i will prove my point online or something
I'm several levels up from them. But I have to deal with the problems they cause constantly. I did start at their level though.
thank you for your service i guess
Permanently Deleted
Sounds like you're just an extra special boy. Surely that's the only explanation to literally all of your coworkers doing their job badly.
I didn't say all I said most. It's really probably not even most just a large enough portion of them that there's always some issue going on caused by their negligence.
Sounds like you're just a mostly special boy then. Surely that's the only explanation to literally most of your coworkers doing their job badly.
It's not just about treating current employees well. It's also about offering enough at the hiring stage to attract more good workers. Higher starting pay and a better reputation as a place to work means more people applying, means that Methface Matt can't compete with TypeA Teresa to get hired in the first place.
People lie in their interviews all the time. The amount of conversations I've had with my boss regarding people he's hired that turned out be idiots that have started with "I don't know what happened with that dude, he seemed totally normal in the hiring process". We're also restricted in what questions we can ask during interviews because asking people probing questions is apparently not fair according to our HR dept which makes it pretty easy for them to BS their way in. Then we're stuck with their dumb asses for months before HR lets us fire them.
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks
I guess you haven't met many CEOs, then.
You must need a better job. I've had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.
You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?
If I made my hiring manager worried more about quality I wouldn't be hired
That doesn't really change the overall point. People are stupid. It's the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it's worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it's still a point worth considering.
if you dont raise your children to be adults, they won't act like adults when they grow up. A revolution would mean people learning entirely new skills, like making decisions in the workplace. Most workers have no agency, theyre treated like machines, so I dont expect people raised in that society to know how to run a completely different one from scratch. Revolution is a process, it has to be built. Keep shitting on your coworkers tho, im sure its a productive activity
They can't even learn to do the tasks they are expected to do now. Even with frequent coaching. How the fuck can you expect them to learn to make business decisions?
You've clearly never worked close with anyone making business decisions in the real world.
I used to work for a food type company and the way they decided to import and sell stuff locally was if the board of directors (the CEO who inherited the company from daddy + his siblings) liked the item. They hired someone, my coworker, to actually run the market tests and everything and then promptly ignored any suggestion she had to make about the viability of this product on the local market, instead relegating her to a busser that was in charge of ordering the samples they decided they wanted.
I remember one item nobody liked (they would give us the remaining samples in the break room like some dogs getting the leftovers), but one of the siblings liked it and they got that close to putting it on the market because of it.
That all tracks
I have so many stories from there. At the end of the year they would sell the soon to be expired stock to the employees for like half the price. On paper it was half (you're just giving money back to your employer so fuck them I stole as much food as I could), but the person who actually took the money was super nice and often gave us further discounts. For them the difference was like a decimal in accounting.
They announced these sales by email with the time and date. And in 2020, the year of covid, when half the workforce was working from home, they made the sale as usual. I learned afterwards that on that morning, the siblings who owned the company went and parked their cars right in front of the warehouse where the sale took place, and filled the trunk with as much stuff as they could. Then 2 hours later the sale happened and there was almost nothing left.
Technically legal but a fucking shitty thing to do lol, your job is to have a blurry monitor and pretend to do Excel sheets and you drive a Porsche, I think you have the means to load up your car at the store like a grown adult if you need to.
same way we expect students in 9th grade to be capable of more complicated tasks once they're in 12th grade. The nature of labor in capitalist countries is to sort out wheat from chaffe. "Good" workers become managers (although this is theoretical, ive had plenty of shitty managers), leaving the "bad" workers down at the bottom. This how the economy works right now, but it doesnt always have to. For example, unions sometimes have a probation period where you work as a temp, then join the union after a month or two. This gives you time to learn the job, before you have a say in how things are organized.
I have more thoughts, but im working rn 😝
Good" workers become managers.
These days it's mainly external hires, but it used to be you got promoted to incompetence. You do a job well, you get promoted. You don't do it well and you don't get promoted. Thus you get stuck doing something you're bad at
Permanently Deleted
Sounds like a structural issue. Your coworkers are overworked or underpaid or not informed correctly for the job they're given. Maybe they know they're not skilled, but the job is the only one available to them and since they need the money they're stuck doing something theyre unskilled at. These are but a few systemic problems that might lie to reason.
Ask yourself this: If all your coworkers are bad at their job, are you just an extra special boy, or might there be something wrong going on?
yesMost of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
Your coworkers aren't incompetent. Your coworkers are just half-assing at work because they correctly realize they're not going to get paid more if they actually tried.
So they're just selfish assholes that don't mind creating more work for everyone else and potentially putting people's safety at risk? That doesn't do anything to convince me that they should have a say in how the business is run. If they're not happy with their pay they can go elsewhere.
It's not selfish to not go above and beyond what you need to do to help a business that doesn't care about you.
Where did I say anything about helping the business? I don't expect them to go above and beyond, when they don't do their assigned tasks correctly their coworkers then have to deal with the problems this causes getting bitched at by angry customers and such. On top of that some things if not done properly can create a safety issue. We have safeguards in place for this but again it's just extra work for someone else to redo it. This attitude is causing far more problems for their coworkers than it is for the business.
I don't expect them to go above and beyond
Yes you do, they are doing enough to get paid, and you want them to do more.
They're on track to get fired so they're not going to get paid for long. You totally ignored what I said about making all their coworkers suffer for their laziness. I thought all us workers were supposed to be in this together?
If most of the workers are on track to get fired, that sounds like a structural problem with management
It's not. Management gave them an extra 6 month freeze on any corrective action for not meeting their metrics while we gave them dozens of hours of extra training to try and help them get their shit together. A handful of them actually listened and are now doing okay. The rest didn't give a fuck and are doing as bad as ever.
Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don't own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they're not considered the "superior" of any other workers.
Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn't put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else?
Who said that's the case?
Than I don't really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
- As far as I understood, the company's shares belong to the employees ("everyone gets a seat on the board") and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
- Can he be replaced at all times?
- How is the compensation of the employees determined?
- How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
- Can employees be fired?
- How can employees join and leave the company?
- Do they return their shares on leaving?
- Can they buy and sell their shares?
- How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
- How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
- If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
- What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
- Can some employees put in more capital than others?
- Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
ඞ
@lightnsfw @dingus
You really think the people currently running your company are any different from those other coworkers?Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don't have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn't mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I've ever heard in my life.
Education related to the exploitation of their workers
Ftfy
You must be a joy to work with.
I'm great to work with. No one has to worry if the task they assign me is going to be done right and on time.
Every single job I've had was made worse by management. Not just worse for us, but worse for customers/clients as well. I have zero faith in management, I have complete faith in the people actually working on the floor knowing what would be best to do on the floor.
Now you ask about "not making it fail immediately" which to me gives me an impression of thinking it is still a business that needs to be grown.
I imagine a lot of shop floors would agree their time and resources were better spent elsewhere. No one needs Funko pops, I don't doubt those workers would find something better to do