Of course it would be a different discussion. A discussion where your point is openly wrong instead of hidden behind the false morality that you have when you focus on inheritance. Let me ask you a question. If a person builds a company, like Wal-Mart, from the ground up...not inheriting it...do they have the right to the millions that they make? Do they have the right to dictate how much thier employee's make and not give into demands if they do not want to?
No one builds anything from the ground up, its all dependant on the institutions that they depend on and that govern how buisiness is done ... Its like saying someone that became king from being a peasant ... that doesn't justify the kingship.
Do you really think that it doesn't take mental labor to control the company? Do you think that there isn't mental labor involved in controlling capitol?
Sure ... But they arn't compensating themselves for mental labor ... their mental labor is not what pays them.
I never stated that Corporations are individual entities. The way that you have been argueing though is that there are two sides in this paradigm. The CEO (one person) and the employee's (talking as if they are one). "The CEO should give employee's more money" or "The CEO should give employee's more benefits". Not because they deserve it but because they have a right to it "because those employee's are more important than the CEO" (note that I am paraphrasing here)
I'm not saying they CEO SHOULD do anything ... Capitalism is not a meritocracy, I'm sainy if the workers want to get better pay and benefits, and improve the workplace the best way to do that is organize.
And yes, economics is a social activity. One that includes more than those employee's. It includes every single person alive. But like every social activity there is always those on the top, and those on the bottom. That will never change and is impossible to get rid of...even with unions.
That was the argument against democracy for monarchy.
The worker has no right to say what happens to the wealth he helps produce. He abrogates that by agreeing to work for someone else for a certain amount of pay. Even the companies administrators do not have that right. Only the owner does. Anyone else has to have his permission. The only way that a worker has that right is if they own the company.
Under Capitalism .... an institution which doesn't work ...
Also you have a "right" to what you can get.
Lets look at it this way. Does the individual employee have to pay any other employee? Does the individual employee have to pay the manufacturing costs? Does the individual employee have to pay the electric bill? The permits? Does the individual have to worry about whether thousands of products will sell or not? Does the individual employee have to worry about negative publicity that could loose customers? Does the employee have to pay for the products that are bought wholesale? Does the grocery night stocker have to worry about making sure that the electronics section is stocked?
Yes he does ... The money that pays for that comes partially from his labor, and he does need to worry, becuase it would cost HIM before it costs the executive.
Also that doesn't justify anything, power being difficult to wield doesn't justify the power.
I could go on and on with that list. But in all of them the answer is No. The employee does not have to do any of that. The only thing that the employee has to do is do the ONE job that they are assigned to. The one job in hundreds that are required of such companies like Wal-mart. The owner of the company has to make sure that all of that is accomplished. He/She normally does that by hiring other people to make sure its done. But if its constantly not then it must be brought before his/her attention so that he/she can remedy the situation. Along with remedying the situation that made that situation get all the way up to him. (just one small example of how a CEO's job includes more than just controlling capitol) A CEO has to worry and take care of the whole company, the individual worker that you are mostly talking about only has to worry about one thing.
So why would'nt a democracy recognize that? Or is everyone else but the CEO too dumb to know people's real value?
So, with that said...why should the employee, who again only takes care of one small detail among hundreds, have a "right" to dictate the wealth that his/her already compensated work goes towards?
That individual doesn't have teh right to dictate anything, he has a right to participate in the decision making.
Perhaps I didn't understand your point? Maybe you could expand on it?
I was talking about cooperatives, and you were mentioning somethign about managers in cooperatives, that I didn't get.
Umm...not sure of your point here. I sense sarcasm here....Are you saying that moving from one job to another in the same area is too much?
My point is the principle is the same.