Bernie, the "No Jobs" President

[jordanriver]

doubtful. If they can't sell their goods at a profit, then they will close just like any other factory.

one can only hope, eh

[Sparko]

I'm not sure how the new worker coops that are successful handle that part,

Or the more than 300 so-called "recovered factories" operating in Argentina

Source: New hope for Argentina in the recovered factory movement

The former salesman is there by the popular vote of his fellow workers. source

© Copyright Original Source

did you keep reading?



Yay I own a factory and make even less money and ! I am a success!!! woohoo.

[Joel]

they're not mine. I just pointed out they exist. The ones in Argentina appear to be democratic, with the workers being the ones doing the voting.'

Do you notice the citation in post 72

I understand the idea of making business decisions by vote. I'm more wondering about ownership. The article you link to says, "equal employee ownership". Wouldn't that create a big disincentive to bringing in new worker-owners? Suppose they would like to expand production by doubling their workforce. But that would cost the existing owners half their equity in the company. That would be a huge up-front cost to bringing in new people.

Wouldn't it also virtually eliminate the incentive for any workers to contribute new capital (i.e. means of production)? You'd simply lose ownership of it (except for your equal share of the firm). And it would be a pure gift for anyone outside to contribute capital. As Sparko pointed out, the article says that lack of investment capital remains a problem.


Some of these problems might be fixed by unequal ownership. For example, they could do away with wages/salaries, and pay only in equity. New workers would start out as non-owners, but earn shares per hour (for example). Older workers will have built up equity and not lose it when new workers join. Ownership would thus be proportional to contribution. Likewise contributing capital could earn you shares. But none of that is possible if the goal is equal ownership. And there's still the problem of outside contributors of capital. That could just as equally earn them shares, as an outside investor. But then there wouldn't be pure worker ownership anymore.

Also what happens if you leave the firm? Pure worker ownership would imply that you cease to have any ownership after leaving the firm. Is the worker compensated for that loss (e.g. the remaining workers buy out your share)? If not, there is a large additional cost to quitting your job.

[Raphael]

I understand the idea of making business decisions by vote. I'm more wondering about ownership. The article you link to says, "equal employee ownership". Wouldn't that create a big disincentive to bringing in new worker-owners? Suppose they would like to expand production by doubling their workforce. But that would cost the existing owners half their equity in the company. That would be a huge up-front cost to bringing in new people.

Wouldn't it also virtually eliminate the incentive for any workers to contribute new capital (i.e. means of production)? You'd simply lose ownership of it (except for your equal share of the firm). And it would be a pure gift for anyone outside to contribute capital. As Sparko pointed out, the article says that lack of investment capital remains a problem.


Some of these problems might be fixed by unequal ownership. For example, they could do away with wages/salaries, and pay only in equity. New workers would start out as non-owners, but earn shares per hour (for example). Older workers will have built up equity and not lose it when new workers join. Ownership would thus be proportional to contribution. Likewise contributing capital could earn you shares. But none of that is possible if the goal is equal ownership. And there's still the problem of outside contributors of capital. That could just as equally earn them shares, as an outside investor. But then there wouldn't be pure worker ownership anymore.

Also what happens if you leave the firm? Pure worker ownership would imply that you cease to have any ownership after leaving the firm. Is the worker compensated for that loss (e.g. the remaining workers buy out your share)? If not, there is a large additional cost to quitting your job.

Not to mention how do you deal with poor performance from a worker who is also has some ownership of the business.

[Carrikature]

Not to mention how do you deal with poor performance from a worker who is also has some ownership of the business.

There should be systems in place for that. Corporations where ownership of shares exists for executives have policies for buying people out.

[Sparko]

I understand the idea of making business decisions by vote. I'm more wondering about ownership. The article you link to says, "equal employee ownership". Wouldn't that create a big disincentive to bringing in new worker-owners? Suppose they would like to expand production by doubling their workforce. But that would cost the existing owners half their equity in the company. That would be a huge up-front cost to bringing in new people.

Wouldn't it also virtually eliminate the incentive for any workers to contribute new capital (i.e. means of production)? You'd simply lose ownership of it (except for your equal share of the firm). And it would be a pure gift for anyone outside to contribute capital. As Sparko pointed out, the article says that lack of investment capital remains a problem.


Some of these problems might be fixed by unequal ownership. For example, they could do away with wages/salaries, and pay only in equity. New workers would start out as non-owners, but earn shares per hour (for example). Older workers will have built up equity and not lose it when new workers join. Ownership would thus be proportional to contribution. Likewise contributing capital could earn you shares. But none of that is possible if the goal is equal ownership. And there's still the problem of outside contributors of capital. That could just as equally earn them shares, as an outside investor. But then there wouldn't be pure worker ownership anymore.

Also what happens if you leave the firm? Pure worker ownership would imply that you cease to have any ownership after leaving the firm. Is the worker compensated for that loss (e.g. the remaining workers buy out your share)? If not, there is a large additional cost to quitting your job.

Or retiring. If you retire without your shares, you will have no retirement and starve. If you retire with your shares, eventually the factory will have no working owners. Just retirees. And can the retirees give their shares to their children after they die?