Wealth distribution

[Montmorency]

1) in our current system, shareholders own the company. However, shareholders are not the only stakeholders in a company. Wouldn't it be more fair to make the workers in the company co-owners and let them have a say in the decision making process? Wouldn't it be more fair to let all workers combined be co-owner of the business they work in? Or even further: once the investor has earned his money back, with a certain compensation (profits): shouldn't it then be so that the labourers get ownership of the entire company?

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.

4) continuing on the line of thought of 3): is it ok for somebody to have so much wealth that he can exercise, de facto, power over thousands of people; power he didn't get from the people, but he simply has because he is wealthy? Shouldn't there be a treshold, a certain cap on how much wealth (=power, but not given by the people) one individual can obtain?

How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?

5) Meritocracy: does the possibility to inherit wealth belong in a meritocracy? Shouldn't we get rid of inheritance laws? Whatever you leave after your death, gets redistributed instead of handed over to the lucky bastard who came out of the right vagina? Kings and Queens get this critique, but doesn't that go up for sons and daughters of billionaires?

What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.

all education public and of the same quality.

Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?

If we have the means to guarantee every human shelter, food, water, heating and education, then shouldn't we consider reaching that goal a priority above all?

A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

[Andres]

What if the investor is also 'the/a boss', such as in most small businesses? Does he retain his stake as technically a worker in the company? Does he under any circumstances retain some majority stake and therefore authority, or must he pass elections by the workers?

What are the mechanisms of divesting laborers of their shares if they are "fired"? What are the mechanisms of firing? Who does the firing? Is it down to a vote by all of the companies laborers? In large companies this would be both inefficient and unfair. It seems to me that there are some functions (such as hiring and firing) that work better when centralized in one position or set of positions. Currently, in small businesses it is typically the management that performs this function, while in large companies it is contracted out, so to speak, to HR departments. And yet, in terms of co-ownership of and stakes in a company, hiring and firing is one of the most crucial powers, and centralizing it automatically creates a huge divide between those who have the power and those who lack it. (Though of course in large companies there are various tiers to these functions, since a low-level manager can't ever fire an executive, and while an executive often can't personally fire a low-level manager, he can easily have him fired by whoever manages that manager.) Bottom line, centralization and hierarchization seem to be structurally integral to business, yet also difficult to reconcile with democratic ownership of a company.

A preferable solution would be less extreme, since the proposal you present seems to bring us full-circle eventually: better to heavily check the excesses of bosses in companies of any size, while giving workers small or low-level financial and ownership stakes in the company, as well as both the privilege and responsibility of regulating their local work environments in conjunction with both their superiors and colleagues, and some mechanism for mobility through the hierarchy at-least-mostly independent from the existing top-level.

As to the specifics, I declare myself incompetent to postulate.

Why are you so opposed to changing the system? The problems you name exist now too, yet no opposition.

Anyway, if the investor works himself, then obvioulsy, he can keep a vote in his company. As a labourer. Like the rest of the people working.

Are we looking for an ideal system for maximum and thus ipso fact ice cold efficiency or do we aim for fairness?

Will the decison making process become harder? Perhaps. So what? Can't labourers elect their own CEO? Why not? Can't I at least elect the (wo)man who I work for? When it comes to countries, everybody cheers when wars are waged against countries that don't know our type of "democracy" (we don't have it either, but who cares)? But for labourers electing their own boss, oh no, that's dirty communism talking here, the idiot needs to be burned him at the stake or put in a mental facility.

What are the chances people will get fired just like that for maximimsing profit for the benefit of people who are not working at all in the company, but just own a piece of paper, sit on their butt and want to squeeze the maximum out of it, when the workers themselves own the company?

You also ignore my point 3). When the company gets too big, democratic processes become different and more difficult. And less democratic. Then just don't let companies become too big.

You need to change your aim. The aim is not maximum growth, maximum profits at the cost of all. The aim is not "the economy". The aim is letting people who work have a say in the matters. We call ourselves a democracy, yet we have this system of wage labour in which you do what you are told or you get the sack; which means you'll have no means to live if you don't accept somebody playing boss over you.

That's not a democracy, that's a hypocrisy.

How do you manage that without encouraging, say, Mafias and other shady power-brokers who don't necessarily have a huge amount of explicit wealth or at least don't wield it explicitly?

Excellent. You put wealthy people with way too much non-democratically legitimated power on the same line as professional criminals. That's a very correct comparison and a correct analysis. What do we do with scum? We put them in jail. Instead of putting the poor in prison, we have to put the white collar criminals in jail. Not giving them a free pass like we do now.

What about sons and daughters of life-time millionaires? As in, a person who accumulated a million in liquid currency or whatever, over a lifetime? That's not really so much to pass on, right? Or, what about next-of-kin? Say, a single mother dies and her juvenile is taken in by grandparents - should the grandparents receive some of the mother's assets, especially if there was a will or other evidence that the mother would have wished for that to happen? (the transfer of assets, not the death :P)

A progressive inheritance-tax seems to make most sense, though loopholes that allow shuffling of properties and assets and so on between numerous hands in order to bypass taxes and eventually arrive relatively unmolested in the hands of some individual must be caught somehow.

However, I suppose you could argue that any minimum income or enforced living-standard should be enough for anyone under any circumstances (with extenuating circumstances such as chronic illness increasing the baseline for that individual), in which case you might as well redistribute all assets upon death, no matter how meager. On the other hand, you must then deal with people trying to, say, gift away or "invest" huge sums in their old age or decrepitude.

Do you want a true meritocracy or not?

One million to pass on is not so much? Tell that to the son of a drug addict and a prostitue living in a ghetto.

What difference does it make for the son or daughter of a billionaire if his father or mother acquired it by work or inheritance. The son or daughter didn't; his or her only merit is to be born in the right family. Bravo, what an accomplishment.

No inheritances anymore. Period.

Everybody needs to start with the same weapons: education wise and wealth wise. And welfare state wise.

Better to make private education more affordable and improve public education overall; the best way to make it affordable though, is not vouchers or whatever, but higher incomes across the board. Also, keep in mind that even among public schools there is an elite class, and we can not hope to have all schools, public or private, match that elite class. Should existing top-quality public schools be disbanded?

I basically said: no more distinctions. That's not so hard to understand. Screw your "elite" schools. They are nothing more but a tool to institutionalise inequality.

A higher priority is to provide for the future and monitor our civilization's and planet's condition and take 'necessary measures' in order that such a goal could be continuously met over time. "The higher they are, the harder they fall", so it's only good sense to ensure that we have a solid foundation to rise from, rather than a flimsy Jenga tower, in the first place.

You make it sound as if there's a choice to make. A much better ambition would be an "and" "and" story. Whoever gives you the idea that that isn't possible, lies.

[Montmorency]

Why are you so opposed to changing the system?

Huh?

Are we looking for an ideal system for maximum and thus ipso fact ice cold efficiency or do we aim for fairness?

An efficient system would obviously move the world toward your ideals of fairness more than an inefficient one...

When the company gets too big, democratic processes become different and more difficult. And less democratic. Then just don't let companies become too big.

Sometimes, size - IOW centralization of production - is preferable. How about simply giving the state more stake in a company as it grows past some threshold?

Will the decison making process become harder? Perhaps. So what? Can't labourers elect their own CEO? Why not?

How many positions would be elected? Just executive ones? Is your solution to the hiring issue to have one person start a company and then hire another into the company and then democratically "elect" applicants or existing workers into every conceivable position? That's untenable. The point is, you can't undermine efficiency so much without literally collapsing the system. I understand that you'd be fine with a de-globalized society, but the cost of a transition to a 'simpler' standard of living would involve the deaths of hundreds of millions or even billions...

In big companies, if all workers are co-owners or stakeholders then it makes sense for them to all have a say in electing executives, but in a small company with no genuine executives to speak of it isn't quite right for an investor to start a small business and then immediately have his workers kick him out on a whim and appropriate his entire investment, whether to continue the business by their own standard or to just sell off all the assets and split the profits. That would clearly be another sort of vulture capitalism, or even just plain chaos.

You didn't really address my modified proposal, so how about this - hiring and firing remain much the same as they are, though perhaps more modularly: in a small business of 20 employees, everyone gets some say on an applicant chosen by the chief, and in a big company the workers in one department or project, for example, get some say on applicants into their area; firing would be similar - the boss can't fire someone without the majority of people in the small business, department, or project, etc. agreeing to the decision, but the boss does have a special veto that, for example, prevents co-workers from just firing that one guy nobody likes but is actually a good worker.

You need to change your aim.

My aim is sustainability, clearly.

Excellent. You put wealthy people with way too much non-democratically legitimated power on the same line as professional criminals. That's a very correct comparison and a correct analysis. What do we do with scum? We put them in jail. Instead of putting the poor in prison, we have to put the white collar criminals in jail. Not giving them a free pass like we do now.

Since prison should be geared more towards rehabilitation than "revenge", how exactly should white-collar criminals be treated? Anyway, the white-collar 'underground' persists precisely because they are powerful. So, in a place like Italy say, how do you prevent the Mafias from getting even more actual control over state and economic affairs, once your reforms would be implemented?

Do you want a true meritocracy or not?

Meritocracy is a convenient buzzword, but it does not work like the ideal some have. Anyway, I said that education should be improved everywhere, which you plainly agree with - so I don't see what your problem is.

One million to pass on is not so much? Tell that to the son of a drug addict and a prostitue living in a ghetto.

Obviously that would be taxed. What would happen in the example of the single mother that I gave? No assets directly passed on to the grandparents, just a rise in the minimum of support to them?

For the "no inheritances" thing to work, you would definitely first have to build the capacity to maintain a minimum standard for everyone or almost everyone, and just as importantly a public trust in that capacity. Referring back to an earlier point, this would entail that your reforms be introduced progressively over decades, and not all at once. "One step at a time".

Screw your "elite" schools. They are nothing more but a tool to institutionalise inequality.

These are public schools we are talking about. So, close down public schools just because they outperform other public schools (and private ones)? That's incredibly backwards.

A much better ambition would be an "and" "and" story. Whoever gives you the idea that that isn't possible, lies.

'Do everything at once' isn't a question of possibility, it's a question of pragmatism. Sure, we could try that - we'd fail. It's almost always - in any situation - to take things one step at a time.

[Tuuvi]

I work in a retail store for $8.35 an hour, I understand wanting to have a stake in the company I work for and having more of a say on how it is run. But at the end of the day making corporations "democratic" does not make a lot of sense to me. My employment is a contract between myself and my employer. I'm selling my time and labor to them for monetary compensation.

A company doesn't exist to provide services to its employees like a government provides services to its citizens. It exists to provide services to its clients/customers in the hopes of making a profit. The workers are the ones who are providing services to the company.

CEO's wield a lot of power and authority, but technically they are employees like everyone else. The business is the one paying for the CEO's services, so it has every right to pick the person it believes will do the best job, not the workers. CEO's can and do get fired for poor performance just like regular employees. A couple of years ago the company I work for, JCPenney, hired Ron Johnson from Apple to be CEO. Ron Johnson was the executive responsible for making Apple's retail stores a huge success and he was supposed to help JCPenney make a turnaround. His ideas sucked and JCPenney's revenue tanked. Eventually the Board of Directors lost faith in Ron Johnson and they gave him the sack. His term as CEO only lasted about a year and a half, if I remember correctly.

Of course companies have a lot of power over their employees, and that's one of the main topics of this thread, so my post needs to address this point. But it's getting late so that will have to wait.

[HopAlongBunny]

We put scum in jail; but not those scum.
The recent recession, bail-outs, slaps on the wrist demonstrate all to clearly that "justice" comes in differing forms for different classes.
The system certainly does not use "One law to rule them all"; so a better starting point might be to clarify the role of the justice system, and perhaps make explicit the exceptions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We put scum in jail; but not those scum.
The recent recession, bail-outs, slaps on the wrist demonstrate all to clearly that "justice" comes in differing forms for different classes.
The system certainly does not use "One law to rule them all"; so a better starting point might be to clarify the role of the justice system, and perhaps make explicit the exceptions.

Step One: Celebrities who have not physically or sexually harmed another person pay a fine and damages and go home. Tired of the hoopla over low level bull excrement.

[Myth]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...t-society.html