|
Ruggan posted:This. Or the 99 doctors agree to pay the janitor a pittance and the janitor has no real say - but they can’t get any other job in the area. This method doesn’t seem to help minority disenfranchised groups. Workplace democracy doesn't solve all issues inherent to markets, but as long as we're having a society that still has things like money and markets it still represents an unequivocal improvement over the status quo. And ideally you'd have a reasonable minimal level of wages/benefits set by the government. There's also an advantage to the situation you describe over "random high level executives make these decisions in a way where it's difficult to pinpoint where the responsibility lies" - the janitors will know exactly who made the decision to pay them a pittance. It would be easier to find ways to make the doctors' lives difficult. And broadly speaking I imagine that most companies have more low-level employees than high-level ones; hospitals are probably a unique situation where more well-compensated nurses/doctors might outnumber people like janitors (I have no idea if this is actually the case).
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
enki42 posted:Widget makers in that scenario would have a lot of leverage when deciding which company they wanted to work for. They'd easily be able to say "I'll work for whoever wants to give me an outsized share of the profits of the company (or better wages / less hours / whatever they want). From the perspective of the company, it makes sense to do this - otherwise they can't produce widgets, and their company can't function. Given the choice between accepting inequality, or being completely unable to produce anything of value, they'll begrudgingly accept inequality. You would simply make it illegal for anyone to own a disproportionate share of a company and mandate that there always be an equal split. The benefit you describe wouldn't be legal to provide. edit: And for better wages/less hours, you could at least limit the problem by having reasonable mandated minimums. This doesn't solve all the problems inherent to markets, but it's dramatically better than the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 20:17
|
|
|
BoldFrankensteinMir posted:Okay so are you saying ALL greed is the result of social conditioning? Or just that our cultural prevalence of it is? I can see the latter but not the former. Because again, squirrels horde food, and they forget where like 4/5 of their food caches are every year which seems like a pretty clear-cut example of desire outstripping actual material need. Unless your argument is that the squirrel is justified in hedging his bets against disaster, in which case why not argue the billionaire humans are doing the same thing? My general belief with this sort of "nature vs nurture" question is that the "null hypothesis" should always be that "nurture" is the cause of something, with there needing to be some sort of direct proof that "nature" was the cause.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2020 23:11
|
|