• w2qw@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Shareholders at least the ones beating the market have a different skill set to workers. Replacing them with other workers might have issues with long term success.

    I think you’d be better off changing laws that suppress workers wages and laws that unnecessary increase their expenses particularly rent

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Owning things isn’t a skill, my dude. This is evident in the fact that almost the entire human race owns something.

      • w2qw@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed on owning things I was talking about those getting an above market return.

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Of what value is that to society? If there’s no value and massive downsides, why should we protect reward them?

          • w2qw@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah the premise of the system is that society is benefiting. In practice I would agree that’s not always and maybe majorly not the case. In Australia there was a Henry tax review report that details a lot of changes to improve this situation unfortunately many have not been implemented. I’m sure the situation is similar worldwide.

            • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              This is kinda my point - I’m not interested in the empty arguments and spin - I’m interested in what’s best.

              Unfortunately, the Australian government has a habit of commissioning studies rather than taking action (we’ve risen to power under the status quo - why would we change it?) - The Henry review was probably taken less seriously than the Gonski report.

        • unfreeradical@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          When the market is shaped by austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression, then “getting an above market return” depends on austerity politics, corporate welfare, and wage depression (which still is not the same as the “skill set” of owning shares).

          Your objection sidesteps the broader observations, of how the masses of workers are oppressed by the greed of the very few, who sustain a self-serving narrative.

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That skillset would no longer be relevant; their jobs would be made redundant. Companies in this scenario no longer need to seek growth and increasing profit margins. They only need to earn enough to pay their own salaries. And, because the workers are the ones who collectively manage the company, they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you’ve made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people. Like in electrical engineering.

        The more your “path-shortening” effect, the bigger your profit.

        It’s a system leading to optimization (in abstract).

        they can democratically make strategic plans for future production, and logistical changes to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of work necessary and improve their working conditions

        While this isn’t.

        I’d be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed. Just with leftist conversations it always looks like “the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let’s get rid of them”.

        • irmoz@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In abstract sense, when you make profit, it means that you’ve made a sufficiently good path to some end for other people.

          In an abstract sense, sure. But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good. If it’s more expensive to dispose of waste ethically, for example, then waste will be disposed of unethically.

          Like in electrical engineering.

          Yes, I can’t argue that jobs exist that help other people.

          The more your “path-shortening” effect, the bigger your profit.

          Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.

          It’s a system leading to optimization (in abstract).

          In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.

          While this isn’t.

          Why not?

          I’d be happy to see any idea aimed at improving human life conditions, general happiness and so on succeed.

          Okay. Me, too.

          Just with leftist conversations it always looks like “the brakes and safety measures are making the car too expensive, let’s get rid of them”.

          I really don’t mean to be snide, but you have this backwards. Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars. Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic. The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.

          • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But in reality, profit does not require you to do any good.

            It requires you to do something, and scale may make production cheaper, for example.

            Not necessarily. Insurance is one example.

            How so? Insurance is one of the most ingenious things I can think about which market economy allows. Leveraging probabilities to protect each separate participant from some event which would be too expensive without it.

            In the abstract, I agree. But left to play out, monopoly and bureaucracy inevitably emerge.

            That happens in planned economies just as well and worse.

            Why not?

            Because with private\public companies there is some criterion by which a company is being optimized, it’s profit (in general, though with public companies things already work more complex, which is how Apple\MS\etc look so weird).

            With what you describe, first, the response is going to be slow, as it’s democratic planning, second, every worker is going to vote in his own perceived interest. At best it’s going to be just like public companies, at worst most of such companies are not going to be able to support themselves existing.

            I mean, okay, it’s going to have an element of optimization too (cause it’s still going to be capitalist in essence), just possibly less efficient in general. But may bypass some of the traps for public companies.

            Under capitalism, it requires the state to intervene to regulate it in order to, for example, add safety measures to cars.

            Only to make them mandatory for everyone. And then see the following.

            Socialist economies are, as I mentioned, democratic.

            Not necessarily. But they are all bureaucratic.

            The people need safety measures, and the people are in control of production, so safety measures will be in place.

            What one needs, what one thinks one needs, and what one can choose from are three different stages, and then there’s another stage of what one receives in response.

            And these are managed by bureaucracies. Point being, with markets you at least don’t have to build a bureaucracy for market operations per se.

    • MrBusinessMan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. As a major shareholder and successful business owner, I’m far better at relaxing on a beach in Bali than the lazy poors are. Our skill sets are not comparable.