• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kochs Plan to Spend $900 Million on 2016 Campaign

The point is that worker owned businesses are one method to create a better balance between worker's rights and needs and owner's desire for profits. I disagree with the statement "It is a fantasy to think that kind of employment environment can be created."

The plutocrats and their conservative allies constantly try to convince us that individual initiative is the only way to achieve a rewarding work life and that we need to accept the ups and downs of the global economy and corporate/plutocrat decisions. My point is that workers and others can organize, take action to create alternative business models and implement regulations so that workers aren't divided and conquered by plutocrats trying to maximize profits by sacrificing their employee's quality of life.

Do you have some examples of where 'worker owned businesses' have accomplished that?

Because I do....a lot in fact during the 80's and 90's, all gone but a few now....

all but a few.....Just one good success will do
 
Why are you convinced that requiring importers of goods into the USA to meet standards for adequate pay and safe conditions for all workers will fail? It has never been tried. We already successfully prohibit goods from certain nations for political reasons, we can make worker welfare and safety another reason to ban or limit imports from a particular country. There are already several voluntary/consumer inspired measures that have had some success. One example:

"Two big groups of retailers and apparel brands have completed a major step toward advancing garment-factory safety in Bangladesh: They have finished inspecting nearly 1,700 factories in that country.

A European-dominated group — the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, with 189 corporate members, including H&M and Carrefour — said on Tuesday that it had found more than 80,000 safety problems in the 1,106 factories it inspected.

The other — an American-dominated group, the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety — completed inspections in July of the 587 factories that its 26 members, including Walmart, Gap and Target, use in that country.

The groups are working with Bangladeshi factory owners to promote safety and finance improvements, like fireproof doors or fire-sprinkler systems, that are required for garment factories 75 feet or taller in Bangladesh...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/b...-1700-bangladesh-garment-factories-.html?_r=0

I think you may have answered your own question, although you didn't know it. "It has never been tried." Why hasn't it? Is it that the people in these other countries aren't interested in what we define as adequate pay and safe conditions? What's better, stop doing business so the companies close their doors, and let the poor walk the streets? Isn't it up to those workers to take control of their own destiny?

It costs pennies to dollars to live in many foreign countries. How is that difference going to be overcome? Who is going to make sure it's enforced.

You want to change things, refuse to buy anything, including fruits and other products, that is not manufactured in the United States. Get your friends to follow the same plan of action. Zero foreign goods. A veritable Vegan of domestic goods. Otherwise good luck.
 
And in some magical way, these worker owned businesses are going to avoid the ups and downs of the economy? I can't imagine what type of regulations could be adopted and forced upon the economy that would protect this "model" you are describing. At no time in human history has such a thing taken place on any grand scale, and for any significant length of time, at least that I am aware of.



A noted above, Canada is way ahead of you on social experiments....and that one failed too.

The biggest was a saw mill in Chemanus, BC. 227 workers. After three government bail outs over nine years, they were the first to go when trouble came.

The mills sits and rusts
 
A noted above, Canada is way ahead of you on social experiments....and that one failed too.

The biggest was a saw mill in Chemanus, BC. 227 workers. After three government bail outs over nine years, they were the first to go when trouble came.

The mills sits and rusts

We, meaning Man, is designed to survive, and be the fittest. The earliest man didn't stay in the cradle of man amongst the others forever. A leader stepped forward, and led others to more fertile land, and this high risk, high reward migration and civilization forming continues to take place, whether it be to form a new town, or to form a business to benefit one and many.

This collective stuff will always fail because it goes against human nature. In my experience it's promoted by people who aren't the leaders seeking new destinies, but followers too frightened to take responsibility for themselves.
 
And in some magical way, these worker owned businesses are going to avoid the ups and downs of the economy? I can't imagine what type of regulations could be adopted and forced upon the economy that would protect this "model" you are describing. At no time in human history has such a thing taken place on any grand scale, and for any significant length of time, at least that I am aware of.

I did not say that worker owned businesses are going to avoid the ups and downs of the economy and I don't know of any reason why they need special regulations to be adopted and forced upon the economy to protect this "model." They will face all the same challenges as other businesses. The difference between a worker owned business and a typical corporation is that the owners will not have an incentive to screw over the workers simply to increase profits. The workers may choose to reduce their wages or benefits, maybe even lay off a few people at times so they can survive a bad economic period. But they won't take such measures unless it is necessary for survival. By comparison, we have seen profitable companies close factories and move overseas only so the top executives can keep their high salaries and the majority stock holders can see a quicker and larger profit from their investments.
 
Last edited:
Do you have some examples of where 'worker owned businesses' have accomplished that?

Because I do....a lot in fact during the 80's and 90's, all gone but a few now....

all but a few.....Just one good success will do

As previously posted in post #726 One example: Photography company Lifetouch is 100% employee owned, has 25,000 employees and has been in business since 1977. (38 years)
The Employee Ownership 100: America's Largest Majority Employee-Owned Companies
 
I think you may have answered your own question, although you didn't know it. "It has never been tried." Why hasn't it? Is it that the people in these other countries aren't interested in what we define as adequate pay and safe conditions? What's better, stop doing business so the companies close their doors, and let the poor walk the streets? Isn't it up to those workers to take control of their own destiny?

It costs pennies to dollars to live in many foreign countries. How is that difference going to be overcome? Who is going to make sure it's enforced.

You want to change things, refuse to buy anything, including fruits and other products, that is not manufactured in the United States. Get your friends to follow the same plan of action. Zero foreign goods. A veritable Vegan of domestic goods. Otherwise good luck.

It hasn't been tried because it is not in the interest of the people in power to do it. The people will need to force the issue. Also, globalization is relatively recent phenomena enabled by improved transportation and communications technologies.

As I previously said, the assessment of whether a country provides adequate wages and decent working conditions needs to account for different costs of living in other countries. If the owners of overseas factories don't care about the welfare of their workers they are likely to change their mind if they lose all business from a nation as large and wealthy as the USA. If the movement to ban exports from exploitative businesses and nations without basic worker's rights goes international, it will become even more effective. The international boycotts and embargoes of apartheid era South Africa are one example of using trade policy to impact policies in another nation.

In many places workers are too desperate or lack the protection of their civil rights required to effectively advocate for their own interests.

The USA already has embargoes against other nations such as Iran, Russia and Cuba. The existing enforcement mechanism for those embargoes would be used for enforcing future embargoes.

Note that before NAFTA and the opening of trade with China, worker's in the USA enjoyed more employment stability, the protection of union jobs, a better standard of living and less unemployment. Opening up those markets may have been benefited some people at the top of our economic food chain, but it has mostly hurt workers.
 
Last edited:
We, meaning Man, is designed to survive, and be the fittest. The earliest man didn't stay in the cradle of man amongst the others forever. A leader stepped forward, and led others to more fertile land, and this high risk, high reward migration and civilization forming continues to take place, whether it be to form a new town, or to form a business to benefit one and many.

This collective stuff will always fail because it goes against human nature. In my experience it's promoted by people who aren't the leaders seeking new destinies, but followers too frightened to take responsibility for themselves.

Didn't those "leaders" need to have followers, and investors/supporters helping them to move and build in the more fertile land? Individual innovation and risk taking is important, but so is team building, cooperation and community. We can't have leaders without followers, and people don't follow unless there is a benefit for them.
 
"Mondragon: This is the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover, providing employment for 83,869 people in 256 companies. It operates in four areas: finance, industry, retail and knowledge. Co-operatives are owned by their worker-members and power is based on the principle of one person, one vote. A portion of each member enterprise’s net revenue goes to a fund for research and development, which finances new product development. R&D employs 800 people with a budget of more than $75 million. In 2010, 21.4 per cent of sales comprised new products and services that did not exist five years earlier. John Lewis: The British company is hailed as one of the best models of worker-owned businesses. Employee-owned since 1929, it has sales of £8.7 billion ($12.7 billion), 81,000 employees, and profits of £354 million. Over the last 50 years, the average bonus has been 16 per cent of the annual wage (compared with 0 per cent to 3 per cent in British industries in general in the last three years)...People power: 3 of the world’s most successful employee-owned businesses

"...the authors’* research shows that on average, firms which give their employees an ownership stake are more productive, more innovative, and are more desirable workplaces for employees. As the authors put it, “[employee ownership] pays off, at least for those firms and workers that choose it.” And the successes of these companies, combined with the unique troubles the average American worker is suffering, make it plausible that expanding employee ownership could be a solution to the problems of stagnating worker compensation and rising income inequality. The authors suggest a number of steps to encourage Corporate America to rely more on employee ownership in their structures, including tax incentives and the liberalization of state-based restrictions on the type of companies that can be incorporated...."

*of The Citizen’s Share, Joseph Blasi, Douglas L. Kruse, and Richard B. Freeman (a sociologist and two economists, respectively)
http://business.time.com/2013/11/19/can-employee-owned-companies-reboot-the-economy/
 
But the most dirty air is coming out of D.C. and there is nothing the Federal Govt. can do to stop it, only the electorate can stop it and as Gruber stated many aren't very smart

Most of the hot air is coming from DC at any rate.
 
I think million dollar weddings and billion dollar campaign buying are both offensive, which is all the more reason to limit the degree to which individuals acquire such unreasonable amounts of money.

It seems so simple to flush the Marxists out of the woods.
 
I'm not worried about me....but advertising is very influential with a great number of the electorate. It is a known fact that money can sway an election which is why the "Citizen's United" case was such a fiasco. As a result, our Whitehouse faces the real danger of being bought by the highest bidder. We need real campaign reform and ideally we would have publically financed campaigns and get private money out. Then...it would be about the candidates and the issues and less about a 60 second sound bite.

If we eliminate legal plunder no one will want, or need, to buy politicians. It is time for the state legislatures to weigh in with an Article V Convention of states to propose amendments. We need to reform our Constitution and prevent the politicians from utterly destroying us.
 
I did not say that worker owned businesses are going to avoid the ups and downs of the economy and I don't know of any reason why they need special regulations to be adopted and forced upon the economy to protect this "model." They will face all the same challenges as other businesses. The difference between a worker owned business and a typical corporation is that the owners will not have an incentive to screw over the workers simply to increase profits. The workers may choose to reduce their wages or benefits, maybe even lay off a few people at times so they can survive a bad economic period. But they won't take such measures unless it is necessary for survival. By comparison, we have seen profitable companies close factories and move overseas only so the top executives can keep their high salaries and the majority stock holders can see a quicker and larger profit from their investments.


Well then, I have no idea what you meant when you mentioned "implement regulations".

My point is that workers and others can organize, take action to create alternative business models and implement regulations so that workers aren't divided and conquered by plutocrats trying to maximize profits by sacrificing their employee's quality of life.​

As to closing factories, the managers have a fiduciary duty to see to it that the company survives. Prove to me they took such action just to preserve their high salaries.
 
It hasn't been tried because it is not in the interest of the people in power to do it. The people will need to force the issue. Also, globalization is relatively recent phenomena enabled by improved transportation and communications technologies.

As I previously said, the assessment of whether a country provides adequate wages and decent working conditions needs to account for different costs of living in other countries. If the owners of overseas factories don't care about the welfare of their workers they are likely to change their mind if they lose all business from a nation as large and wealthy as the USA. If the movement to ban exports from exploitative businesses and nations without basic worker's rights goes international, it will become even more effective. The international boycotts and embargoes of apartheid era South Africa are one example of using trade policy to impact policies in another nation.

In many places workers are too desperate or lack the protection of their civil rights required to effectively advocate for their own interests.

The USA already has embargoes against other nations such as Iran, Russia and Cuba. The existing enforcement mechanism for those embargoes would be used for enforcing future embargoes.

Note that before NAFTA and the opening of trade with China, worker's in the USA enjoyed more employment stability, the protection of union jobs, a better standard of living and less unemployment. Opening up those markets may have been benefited some people at the top of our economic food chain, but it has mostly hurt workers.

What's stopping people from organizing themselves on a greater scale and doing it themselves? You blame people in power. It seems to mee you should pointing to the people who don't take the power unto themselves. You attempt to cover that by claiming there are "many places" workers are too desperate or lack protection of their civil rights. Where would that be? Words are cheap.

Before opening trade with China, union power was dwindling because unions aren't interested in the health of the employers, they are only interested in the power of the union.
 
Didn't those "leaders" need to have followers, and investors/supporters helping them to move and build in the more fertile land? Individual innovation and risk taking is important, but so is team building, cooperation and community. We can't have leaders without followers, and people don't follow unless there is a benefit for them.

Leaders don't wait for followers before they act. At least that is my experience. Followers follow because they assume they might benefit. Some make good decisions when choosing who or what to follow. Obviously team building, cooperation and community are important. However, you left out one. Contribution. And I suppose one more, responsibility. Fail to provide both, and things quickly unravel.
 
They self-identify. The stench of class envy is impossible to ignore.

You're in a fantasy land. Some of the richest ****s in the world are liberal. It has nothing to do with envy. And no one is enviable of you, specifically, either.

Now that I know you think liberals in general are liars, it'll be much easier to address you in argument from now on. There is no need for evidence, reason, or thought because your extremist ideology trumps all of that anyway.
 
You're in a fantasy land. Some of the richest ****s in the world are liberal. It has nothing to do with envy. And no one is enviable of you, specifically, either.

Now that I know you think liberals in general are liars, it'll be much easier to address you in argument from now on. There is no need for evidence, reason, or thought because your extremist ideology trumps all of that anyway.

Marxists reveal themselves readily with the stench of class envy that they exude.

I didn't say they were envious of me.
I didn't say that there weren't rich liberals.

So why don't you just can the silly-ass strawman tactics. Strawman combined with personal insult doesn't say anything about me, but it says something about you.
 
Marxists reveal themselves readily with the stench of class envy that they exude.

I didn't say they were envious of me.
I didn't say that there weren't rich liberals.

So why don't you just can the silly-ass strawman tactics. Strawman combined with personal insult doesn't say anything about me, but it says something about you.

Speaking of strawmen, there is a difference between being concerned about the largely unchecked power that wealth accumulation provides individuals in our society and "class envy."
 
Speaking of strawmen, there is a difference between being concerned about the largely unchecked power that wealth accumulation provides individuals in our society and "class envy."

Yeah, maybe. But whining about million dollar weddings smells a lot more like class envy than "concerns about the undue influence of great wealth". But you already know that, don't you? Just speaking of strawmen, of course.
 
Yeah, maybe. But whining about million dollar weddings smells a lot more like class envy than "concerns about the undue influence of great wealth". But you already know that, don't you? Just speaking of strawmen, of course.
The thread is about excessive political influence by billionaires. You're referring to one sentence out of a thread spanning ~80 pages.
 
Marxists reveal themselves readily with the stench of class envy that they exude.

I didn't say they were envious of me.
I didn't say that there weren't rich liberals.

So why don't you just can the silly-ass strawman tactics. Strawman combined with personal insult doesn't say anything about me, but it says something about you.

First of all, guy, you said "marxists have class envy". Now obviously you are meaning liberals here, since you are so far gone to the right that anyone left of you is a "marxist" (which is laughable in and of itself). Yeah Bill and Melinda Gates have class envy. George Soros has class envy. Matt Damon has class envy.

The little amount of credibility you had was lost on the other thread. But yeah, according to you, they and I are all just liars. Of course, you can't prove that or show it, but it helps you sleep at night.
 
The thread is about excessive political influence by billionaires. You're referring to one sentence out of a thread spanning ~80 pages.

Oh, well, heaven forbid we make a comment on something said here unless what was said includes some of the words in the subject of the thread, huh? It's like, gee, I can't remark on that remark because that remark isn't one you want me commenting on. You're funny.
 
First of all, guy, you said "marxists have class envy".

I said Marxists are easy to detect from their class envy. It oozes from them. :)

Now obviously you are meaning liberals here, since you are so far gone to the right that anyone left of you is a "marxist"

And there you go starting with the lies.

(which is laughable in and of itself).

And ridiculing your own lie (strawman)

Yeah Bill and Melinda Gates have class envy. George Soros has class envy. Matt Damon has class envy.

Strawman complete. Now You're insinuating that I claimed Bill and Melinda gates and George Soros and Matt Damon have class envy and then proceed to ridicule your silly little dishonest fabrication and you wonder why I am convinced that liberals have a defective honesty gene, don't you?

The little amount of credibility you had was lost on the other thread. But yeah, according to you, they and I are all just liars. Of course, you can't prove that or show it, but it helps you sleep at night.

Yeah, you just seem to have a real challenge with honest discussion. You don't receive honesty very well and you certainly don't give any in return.
 
Back
Top Bottom