Of course people that have more responsibility get paid more. Thats how it should be. But that has nothing to do with cooperatives. The individual has more responsibility so they get paid more. The individual that has less gets payed less. Thats the way it should be.
No, the right and moral way is to go and sit at a table and discuss merits. Not go outside and make a scene chanting some slogan that is worthless costing the company money. That just creates bad feelings and hardship for people that have nothing to do with your dispute.
They do have a say in thier wage. All they have to do is accept or not accept the wage offered at the date of hire. If they get hired and want more later on down the line then they should ASK, like adults. Not through temper tantrums like spoiled children.
First of all, it has nothing to do with responsibility ... It has to do with the Capitalist will always pay himself the most he can, and the workers the least he can. The way it should be is whatever pay you can get, that's the market, its not a meritocracy, it never has been.
Second of all, sitting down and "asking" for more pay because you think you deserve it won't do ****, unless you can back it up with some sort of power, and you can have a lot more of that with a union, the capitalist controls all the capital, so if workers want leverage they need to fight collectively.
What you're basically saying is the workers should just play the game the way the Capitalist wants them too ... Nonsense, you play the game in a way that where you have the highest leverage, thats how capitalists do it, thus that is how workers should do it.
And how do they first get control of that capitol? Through thier mental acuity. It certainly isn't by sitting on thier ass.
mental activity AND institutional frameworks and institutional advantages and so on.
Gotta love these silly statements. A company cannot work as a democracy. Again, look at our Senate and Congress to see what a democracy is like in action.
The senate and congress are examplse of a currupt plutocracy, where the representatives answer to buisiness leaders.
also WE HAVE TONS AND TONS OF EXAMPLES THAT WORK AS DEMOCRACIES .... the richest area in europe, Emilia-Romagna, is famous for its cooperatives ...
So? 50 years ago we also had more morals, and less greed. We have changed alot in 50 years.
And that is not what you are saying at all. You are saying that you want the grunts to have just as much say as those that built the company. Even the ones that just started working.
Thats rediculous ... thats like arguing that the reason black people are better off now is because black people have better morals now.
Thats nonsense, people were just as greedy 50 years ago as they are not, the difference the institutions.
Or is it that everyone suddenyl got more greedy at the same time the US made neo-liberal reforms, and the reforms had nothing to do with it. Common now.
Wrong. The very first form of "government" if you can call it that was strength makes right. If you're stronger than the other guy then you can take what he has. Capitalism started the moment when Strength makes Right stopped being the main thing and people started trading one item for another. Even Germany, which you tout as being socialistic (which its not) (or at least the picture perfect way of unions) is based on capitalism.
Wrong, just based on facts. the first governments were tribal, i.e. run by elders and relatively democratic, when land became more important you had monarchies and theocracies with mostly command economies, even in major cities like in Rome and greece, markets were not the main distributive method, trading was mainly between societies not within.
Capitalism started with the industrial revolution. Also Capitalism =/= Markets, it is the Capitalist mode of production.
As far as Germany, yeah ... its not socialist, but it has a lot more socialistic policies than other places which are a big reason it's successful.
Name me one socialist country that has worked.
There has never been a socialist country, you have cooperatives, and areas that were socialistic and countries that implimented socialistic policies, but there hasn't been a socialist country.
Contradictory. If its a socialistic idea (which its not) how can it also be based on capitalism which is the anti-thesis of socialism? Do you even know what socialism actually is?
Like I said ITS NOT A SOCIALIST OR A CAPITALIST IDEA .... It's just a fact on how Capitalism works.
And yeah, I do know what socialism is, its economic democracy.
Sure they will. And do. 7% of our working force is in a union in the US. 53% of our workforce is either middle class or rich....going by US standards of wealth. I would have to say that those that are middle class and rich easily get thier labor's worth. The lower 47% is debateable as to thier worth. And you cannot go by what the individual thinks that they are worth because they will always claim that they are worth far more than they really are.
No ... its not by what they think they are worth, the metric I'm going by is the value they actually produce, and by that workers by definition don't get waht they are worht otherwise capitalism (profit) would'nt work.
So? Considering the CEO has more invested into the company than the common worker it only makes since that they are not the first to get cut. Why should they be? Just because YOU don't see them doing anything does not mean that they don't.
Most of the time the CEO isn't that invested in the company, they have investments all over the places and are many times on boards of other companies, they have reall big golden parachutes and a lot less stake in a company than a worker who's livelyhood depends on it.
I wasn't arguing that CEO's don't do anything btw.
Beats me. I'm not a CEO. I'm one of those lower 47% people. But it is quite possible with the advancements in technology making things easier to keep track of things that a CEO needs to keep track of.
Wiat what???? So why are you not rich? Are you just lazy?
Also are you arguing seriously that CEOs got 300% more compensation because their job god easier????
Also technology made workers more productive too ...
The fact is the same, CEO's paid themselves more because they could ... nothing more nothing less.
So? Power does not equal bad. Power is neutral. It is how the power is used that makes good or bad.
Given that I'm taking it you have no problem with dictatorships ... as long as they are benevolant.
Oh yes, the whole unionized Germany bit. Do you even know the differences between the US and Germany? I tried to point towards it once before but you ignored it. I'll ask again, How much greed is there in Germany compared to the US? (and yes, I already know the answer)
Its not just Germany, its Sweden, Norway, Emilia-Romagna, and other places, the common demoniator is strong Unions and strong social democracies and cooperative ... Not some moral differences.
People are JUST AS GREEDY in Germany as they are everywhere else, the difference is the institutional frameworks, i.e. the economic system.
Arguing that its just moral differences is moronic, and akin to arguing that black people in America are more poor because they are just dumber.
If you want to get semantical any right is a social construct. But guess what. It doesn't matter what you think or not because in the US capitalist property (property period) IS a right. It is even in the Constitution. 5th and 14th Amendment.
The difference is, I can speak and do what I want with my body without any social isntitution ... I don't own capitalist property beyond my possessions without a social instituion, without that its just a claim as valid as me claiming I'm the king of New Zealand.
And items on shelves don't affect other peoples lives either. But we're not talking about inanimate objects. We're talking about you, your property.
BTW, if we want to expand on your idea that a CEO did not build the company from the ground up because of society then the same would apply to your living room. Because without society your living room would not have been able to have been built. Using your same arguement those that built your house has a right to say how that house is treated, lived in, what is in it, how much they should get for you living in it etc etc.
The difference is no one relies on my living room for lively hood, nor does my living room affect society. Giant corporations do.