- 22 May 2023 17:10
#15274807
No, it's not?
If you don't intend to work for life in the corporation, why would you buy property?
It's a fair question. There are many industries where workers simply don't see a point in even having an union.
No idea, but if you only invested $175 on Apple you are probably not too invested.
Sure, it at least requires special spots in the legislature for unions if you want them to be part of it.
That's also not my impression of how corporatism works. My impression is that there is a formal instance where the government mediates between businesses and workers, not necessarily under codetermination, and the result is used or even implemented as law e.g. minimum sectorial wages or other types of labor law regulating industry-wide conditions.
Not that it's like super unusual, even the US has a very watered down version of this by which there is a formal instance where the government helps mediate between businesses and unions whose functioning is regulated by law, instead of keeping out of the whole thing and letting private parties reach a deal.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily, I think it depends a lot on the industry. There are some industries, if anything, where a minimum wage would be completely justified (e.g. where the business has a lot of monopsony power in its industry's labor market and workers find it hard to unionize - it makes more sense for the government to step in directly here). In others, it makes sense for the law to try to encourage the formation of unions so they can reach a bargain with the businesses, essentially working as a bilateral monopoly - codetermination would be an alternative here as well, but if workers really wanted that I would think the union would at least try to get an ownership share large enough to enter the board as a capitalist through the workers' pension fund.
But in many, many other industries it just doesn't make sense. Particularly those where there are many businesses and workers competing, like in most industries where small businesses are the norm. Codetermination doesn't make sense and encouraging unions could prove ineffective in some cases and actively damaging in others.
An investor may also invest most of his wealth in the business and not work there for whatever reason. Am I to believe he's got no skin in the game?
Also, many (if not most) of those investors who just invest a little in the business consciously choose to lose voting rights (in exchange for having priority when it comes to paying stock dividends). They also don't expect or exercise much influence either way. Those passive investors get a much better deal when they forfeit voting rights.
Fasces wrote:
No, it's not?
If you don't intend to work for life in the corporation, why would you buy property?
Fasces wrote:
It's a fair question. There are many industries where workers simply don't see a point in even having an union.
Fasces wrote:What are the dividends on $175 worth of Apple?
No idea, but if you only invested $175 on Apple you are probably not too invested.
Fasces wrote:What constitutional change does it require? Specifically.
Sure, it at least requires special spots in the legislature for unions if you want them to be part of it.
That's also not my impression of how corporatism works. My impression is that there is a formal instance where the government mediates between businesses and workers, not necessarily under codetermination, and the result is used or even implemented as law e.g. minimum sectorial wages or other types of labor law regulating industry-wide conditions.
Not that it's like super unusual, even the US has a very watered down version of this by which there is a formal instance where the government helps mediate between businesses and unions whose functioning is regulated by law, instead of keeping out of the whole thing and letting private parties reach a deal.
Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily, I think it depends a lot on the industry. There are some industries, if anything, where a minimum wage would be completely justified (e.g. where the business has a lot of monopsony power in its industry's labor market and workers find it hard to unionize - it makes more sense for the government to step in directly here). In others, it makes sense for the law to try to encourage the formation of unions so they can reach a bargain with the businesses, essentially working as a bilateral monopoly - codetermination would be an alternative here as well, but if workers really wanted that I would think the union would at least try to get an ownership share large enough to enter the board as a capitalist through the workers' pension fund.
But in many, many other industries it just doesn't make sense. Particularly those where there are many businesses and workers competing, like in most industries where small businesses are the norm. Codetermination doesn't make sense and encouraging unions could prove ineffective in some cases and actively damaging in others.
AFAIK wrote:An investor may put 1% of his portfolio in wat0n Inc and not even notice when it crashes and burns since he's too busy riding AFAIK Inc to the moon and back. I'm happy to see you walk back your claim and now acknowledge that only those who labour in a business can be considered to have more skin than anyone else.
An investor may also invest most of his wealth in the business and not work there for whatever reason. Am I to believe he's got no skin in the game?
Also, many (if not most) of those investors who just invest a little in the business consciously choose to lose voting rights (in exchange for having priority when it comes to paying stock dividends). They also don't expect or exercise much influence either way. Those passive investors get a much better deal when they forfeit voting rights.