People's businesses.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That makes no sense when they all have the same wages.
If you are seeing that as the problem, what you are saying is that all of them are struggling to make ends meet, and that's just not true.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

The problem isn't that person working more, the problem is the person working less.

A lot of people can't afford to work fewer hours.

People can't afford to spend less time? The only problem I see here is boredom.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That makes no sense when they all have the same wages.
If you are seeing that as the problem, what you are saying is that all of them are struggling to make ends meet, and that's just not true.

I'm not saying it's true for all of them, but I think it's fair to say that if you're working in a tile factory, you don't often have the luxury of working three hours a day.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I'm not saying it's true for all of them, but I think it's fair to say that if you're working in a tile factory, you don't often have the luxury of working three hours a day.

Huh? This is a hypothetical discussion where working three hours a day earns you enough to live.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I'm not saying it's true for all of them, but I think it's fair to say that if you're working in a tile factory, you don't often have the luxury of working three hours a day.

I still don't understand your logic.
The person that works three hours a day does that because in that amount of time he exert as much effort as someone that needs eight hours.
Both have exactly the same wages nonetheless. How does him working three hours affect him negatively?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I still don't understand your logic.
The person that works three hours a day does that because in that amount of time he exert as much effort as someone that needs eight hours.
Both have exactly the same wages nonetheless. How does him working three hours affect him negatively?

It might not affect him negatively. Say that to avoid that, you give EVERYONE enough to live.

Say the tile cutter works three hours a day, and gets paid $50.
The phone-answerer works 8 hours, and gets $50.

The phone answerer is probably going to get pissed off. Most people aren't satisfied with "enough to live." In fact, it's extremely rare.

Also try to see it this way.
You have a slow month, and can't pay everyone that $50 per day next month. Do you lay people off?
You could make more money if you made more tiles--but then the tile cutters have to work more. If they work more, they're working more than their three hours per day.
So they either work for free (which no one is going to do) or they get more money. Say, $60 per day. Then it's no longer equal.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Say the tile cutter works three hours a day, and gets paid $50.
The phone-answerer works 8 hours, and gets $50.

So far, so good.

The phone answerer is probably going to get pissed off.

Why? Why would it be fairer to make the tile cutter work eight hours which is more than twice as much for the same price?

Most people aren't satisfied with "enough to live."

When did that come to the equation? Collectivization always renders much much more than with a wage structure because wages are always as low as possible.

You have a slow month, and can't pay everyone that $50 per day next month. Do you lay people off?

What do employers do?

You could make more money if you made more tiles--but then the tile cutters have to work more.

A higher output for wanting to keep a high revenue. How is that worse than a manager laying people off for the sake of the business?

If they work more, they're working more than their three hours per day.

And earning more than what they would with less work during this hypothetical reduction in demand.


I'm failing to see the economical assumptions you're making against a system of equal wages for equal effort.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

It might not affect him negatively. Say that to avoid that, you give EVERYONE enough to live.

Immediately we're coming to a problem here. Me? The community decides its own wages.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Say the tile cutter works three hours a day, and gets paid $50.
The phone-answerer works 8 hours, and gets $50.

The phone answerer is probably going to get pissed off.

He decided his own wages, if he gets pissed off it's his own incompetence.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Most people aren't satisfied with "enough to live." In fact, it's extremely rare.

What's that got to do with anything?

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Also try to see it this way.
You have a slow month, and can't pay everyone that $50 per day next month. Do you lay people off?

Are we talking about this in an anarchist or capitalist context?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Why? Why would it be fairer to make the tile cutter work eight hours which is more than twice as much for the same price?

It wouldn't be, but most people don't care about fair.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

When did that come to the equation? Collectivization always renders much much more than with a wage structure because wages are always as low as possible.

I make enough to have food. I don't buy food and throw the rest of the money away or give it to charity. Neither do you. Because we want things like cars, studded belts, Malibu Stacey dolls, whatever.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

A higher output for wanting to keep a high revenue. How is that worse than a manager laying people off for the sake of the business?
And earning more than what they would with less work during this hypothetical reduction in demand.

The reduction situation was separate.
My point with what I said there was that to keep up with business, there is going to have to be some unfairness from time to time.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm failing to see the economical assumptions you're making against a system of equal wages for equal effort.

The problem with it is mostly rooted in greed. In this tile factory, it works, and I honestly think that's great. My point was never that I don't like it for what it is--I don't like it because it doesn't have the potential to work on a large scale.

Think of it in this context. I work as a salesperson in a store. I make $10 an hour. I have a manager. She does everything I do, plus other things. Should she make $10 an hour as well?
You may think she does, and that's fine, but she won't, and that's what matters.

The problem is that 99% of people don't give a shit about fairness or community. They care about money and ways to get more money.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by JCC

Immediately we're coming to a problem here. Me? The community decides its own wages.

Right, in the beginning.
Things can easily go downhill when you need more money because your kid needs braces or something.

Originally Posted by JCC

He decided his own wages, if he gets pissed off it's his own incompetence.

They decided their own wages before things got started. If things don't work out, it's not his fault he couldn't see the future to pay himself more.

Originally Posted by JCC

What's that got to do with anything?

You said it, and I responded.
You said:

Originally Posted by JCC

Huh? This is a hypothetical discussion where working three hours a day earns you enough to live.

Well, what if you want more than that? You work more to get more money, but then you're receiving more than someone else.

Originally Posted by JCC

Are we talking about this in an anarchist or capitalist context?

I don't know much about anarchism, but whichever you prefer.
I think there is a problem either way: selfishness.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

I make enough to have food. I don't buy food and throw the rest of the money away or give it to charity. Neither do you. Because we want things like cars, studded belts, Malibu Stacey dolls, whatever.

No, no, you don't get what Jillian was saying. Collectivism, collective farming, worker's business, whatever, always becomes more than the wages you need to live on because when there's an employer, the first priority is profit and power. With collectivization, the priority is resource-making for yourself to support yourself and your family etc., a collectivized business run by the people doesn't minimize wages, workers want what's best for them and what's best for them is the things that they want.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

The problem with it is mostly rooted in greed. In this tile factory, it works, and I honestly think that's great. My point was never that I don't like it for what it is--I don't like it because it doesn't have the potential to work on a large scale.

Catalonia.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Think of it in this context. I work as a salesperson in a store. I make $10 an hour. I have a manager. She does everything I do, plus other things. Should she make $10 an hour as well?
You may think she does, and that's fine, but she won't, and that's what matters.

In a worker-run business, there is no manager.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Right, in the beginning.
Things can easily go downhill when you need more money because your kid needs braces or something.

Well, this tends to be where Anarchism comes in, but I don't see why your friends wouldn't chip in anyway.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Well, what if you want more than that? You work more to get more money, but then you're receiving more than someone else.

You've got no obligation to work harder. You're given enough to live, how ridiculous is it that I voluntarily put in more work than is wanted of me and then try and say I deserve more than you? It's like if someone asked me to get them coffee so I get them coffee and a donut then tell them I want them to be my slave for the week.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Ophelia, you realize you're contradicting yourself?
You say it's not fair that everyone earns the same amount of money, but when we tell you exactly how these workers came to that decision, why everyone would like it, and why it works, you say that that doesn't matter because people don't care about fairness.
So fairness only counts when it is a divider among people but not a uniter. Is your conclusion then that people just want to fuck themselves up?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Ophelia, you realize you're contradicting yourself?
You say it's not fair that everyone earns the same amount of money, but when we tell you exactly how these workers came to that decision, why everyone would like it, and why it works, you say that that doesn't matter because people don't care about fairness.
So fairness only counts when it is a divider among people but not a uniter. Is your conclusion then that people just want to fuck themselves up?

I didn't say it wasn't fair. I said people won't like it.

Also, I'm pretty sick, so I'm done with this for tonight.
I'll def. catch up on this tomorrow, though.

[Godslayer Jillian]

God, someone better not call me slow.
I keep failing to see how you think people 'won't like' A more than they won't like B:

A) Equal pay for equal effort for everyone; reduction in everyone's salary during a hard month.
B) Wage system; employer earns over ten times more than the average employee; massive layoffs to protect capital at the expense of production.

[Scareebowfairy]

While I agree that equal pay for everyone is fair, I can't help but see where Underwater Ophelia is coming from.
Straight away I thought of those gambling shows on TV. Sometimes even when they reach a reasonable amount say 10 grand, they still keep going and sometimes they end up losing it all. You can see the disappointment in their face and that they wish they had of just gone with the 10 grand. Why did they keep going then? Because they wanted more.
It might work for a while, but can't you see people becoming unsatisfied?
I don't know much about this sort of thing though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

[viscus]

Worker-owned businesses are pretty neat. There's a worker-owned bakery in San Francisco that I used to frequent called Arizmendi. Everything that they made was really delicious.

I have to wonder if entrenched management would really be so hard to get rid of if people's attitudes just changed.

[Drake Dun]

This is why South America is a dire threat to civilization, and why the powers that be in the U.S. are often terrified over what's going on down there. There are frequent and inadequately controlled outbreaks of rampant democracy in those countries. It's like all those crazy brown people have got the notion that their feelings and thoughts should count, just because they're people. They don't understand that real democracy means mindlessly scratching your name on or punching a hole in some stupid piece of paper in favor of Red Team or Blue Team so that one or the other can have its turn at pursuing the same old agenda with its own particular window dressing.

It's sort of the same reason the U.S. is still all buttsore at Cuba and Iran, several decades down the road. Screwing with U.S. business interests is bad enough, but defying the established order and getting away with it? Or worse yet, getting away with it and propsering? That makes a myth out of the noble lie. It's a frontal assault upon the entire order. Next thing you know, you'll have people hoping for an end to war or God only knows what.

Truly unforgiveable. We should launch an invasion on transparent pretexts, assassinate prominent figures, or finance terrorism, like in the good old days. That'll teach them hooz da boss.

[Mealla]

This video reeks of communism. Communism from above has always failed in practice. Look at Soviet Russia, for example. This is different in that it is from below, but there are still a few things that don't sit right with me.

One, as Ophelia stated, some jobs are more dangerous, and some require more or different forms of training or education. In a free market, jobs that are more difficult to do or that are more dangerous offer an increase in pay. More education typically offers more pay as well. This is a monetary compensation for when a person puts in more work, more time (for example, educational commitments or special training required for a job), or more risk into a position than someone else puts into another position. I don't discourage the fact that these people have come together and agreed to equal pay, but that choice to take equal pay has to be there for it to be fair.

Two, democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Democracy is mob mentality. It can allow uninformed people to make decisions based on their emotions, whims, sense of self-preservation, or other factors that are not truly in the best interests of a society. Think of it in this way....a society exists composed of three lions and a gazelle. In a democracy, the three lions could vote to eat the gazelle, and the gazelle is outvoted, killed, and eaten. Simple, I know, but it demonstrates the point that a democracy doesn't necessarily consider the best interests of an entire community or society as a whole.

Lastly, the video portrays the situation as the factory workers implementing a hostile takeover of the factory when the owner decided to shut the factory down. IF the owner acquired the business through legitimate means (and in all fairness, the video does insinuate he could have acquired it through underhanded means in which case this argument could be ignored), then he should have been given some form of compensation. His filing bankruptcy forfeits his possession of the property and equipment, but as far as I was aware, I thought some compensation was still given, even if merely an acceptance of the property as payment against debt.

[Scareebowfairy]

Originally Posted by viscus

Worker-owned businesses are pretty neat. There's a worker-owned bakery in San Francisco that I used to frequent called Arizmendi. Everything that they made was really delicious.

I have to wonder if entrenched management would really be so hard to get rid of if people's attitudes just changed.

I like the sound of that bakery. I do think its a good I idea. But like you said peoples attitudes would have to change and that's where the problem could lie, sadly.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Mealla

One, as Ophelia stated, some jobs are more dangerous, and some require more or different forms of training or education. In a free market, jobs that are more difficult to do or that are more dangerous offer an increase in pay. More education typically offers more pay as well. This is a monetary compensation for when a person puts in more work, more time (for example, educational commitments or special training required for a job), or more risk into a position than someone else puts into another position. I don't discourage the fact that these people have come together and agreed to equal pay, but that choice to take equal pay has to be there for it to be fair.

And they did agree to it, the ones who are still working there anyway. Any who felt like you and Ophelia were more than welcome to leave, I imagine. There isn't any external political ideology going on here, just workers trying to keep their jobs within a single company with a sole purpose of making and selling tiles. No one is suggesting that a heart surgeon be paid the same as a convenience store clerk.

Originally Posted by Mealla

Two, democracy is not necessarily a good thing. Democracy is mob mentality. It can allow uninformed people to make decisions based on their emotions, whims, sense of self-preservation, or other factors that are not truly in the best interests of a society. Think of it in this way....a society exists composed of three lions and a gazelle. In a democracy, the three lions could vote to eat the gazelle, and the gazelle is outvoted, killed, and eaten. Simple, I know, but it demonstrates the point that a democracy doesn't necessarily consider the best interests of an entire community or society as a whole.

No, which is why it's often tempered with constitutional rule-of-law. Maybe they have such a thing going? Either way, things seem to be working out pretty well for them so far.

Originally Posted by Mealla

Lastly, the video portrays the situation as the factory workers implementing a hostile takeover of the factory when the owner decided to shut the factory down. IF the owner acquired the business through legitimate means (and in all fairness, the video does insinuate he could have acquired it through underhanded means in which case this argument could be ignored), then he should have been given some form of compensation. His filing bankruptcy forfeits his possession of the property and equipment, but as far as I was aware, I thought some compensation was still given, even if merely an acceptance of the property as payment against debt.

Perhaps he has some legal standing, but the guy doesn't deserve any sympathy. He took government subsidies and ran the place into the ground. Now that the workers are in control and the place is turning a profit, we wants to come back? Pfft. The workers should say "Sure, welcome back! Grab a saw and get to work!"

[Godslayer Jillian]

Wow, I wouldn't have been able to put it in better words.
But I would also mention that whole "democracy is two wolves and a gazelle choosing what's for dinner." So you'd rather have a hundred gazelles and a wolf on top of them deciding what's for dinner without them having a say?

[Mealla]

Originally Posted by viscus

And they did agree to it, the ones who are still working there anyway. Any who felt like you and Ophelia were more than welcome to leave, I imagine.

That is why I stated I didn't necessarily have a problem with it in this specific case. I was trying to make the point that I didn't see it as a viable business model for every business.

Originally Posted by viscus

No one is suggesting that a heart surgeon be paid the same as a convenience store clerk.

If this business model were used in a hospital, however, the heart surgeon would be paid the same as the front desk clerk downstairs, correct?

Originally Posted by viscus

Perhaps he has some legal standing, but the guy doesn't deserve any sympathy. He took government subsidies and ran the place into the ground. Now that the workers are in control and the place is turning a profit, we wants to come back?

I am in agreement that he doesn't deserve sympathy, and he waived his right to come back with filing bankruptcy and fraud, but IF he did obtain the property and materials legitimately, LEGALLY he should have been given some compensation for it. He sounds like a real asshole and I have no sympathy for him as a person.

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So you'd rather have a hundred gazelles and a wolf on top of them deciding what's for dinner without them having a say

I wouldn't support that notion either, but that model being an unfair and inefficient form of government wouldn't make the other a better choice.

[JCC]

In a democracy, you can't vote people into a state of second-class citizenship.

[alyroi360]

what's the world coming to when people fight over what we should do as a whole? how about the good ol' days when it was every man for himself? *sarcasm***

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Mealla

That is why I stated I didn't necessarily have a problem with it in this specific case. I was trying to make the point that I didn't see it as a viable business model for every business.

But it is. Why would it not be viable that those who work have power and voice for the decisions of their work?

If this business model were used in a hospital, however, the heart surgeon would be paid the same as the front desk clerk downstairs, correct?

No, not really. They have democratically seized this industry. They didn't change to a new organizational model.
That's the whole point of this!
Dogmatizing economic systems is bullshit, it oppresses workers and hinders productivity. If a doctor and a clerk have a beef with their payment, let them fix it together with everyone that works with them. Why should they have to settle with whatever wage was given to them by above? Why do you think people can't solve the problems of their industry by themselves? You seem to think that the only alternative to top-to-bottom capitalism is top-to-bottom bureaucratism.
This is collectivism, not communism.

but IF he did obtain the property and materials legitimately, LEGALLY he should have been given some compensation for it.

Yeah, but what of it?
LEGALLY you can poison crops with lead and mercury and sell it.
LEGALLY you can't smoke pot.
LEGALLY you can't treat any pet (from dog to pig to chicken to vole) 'inhumanely'
LEGALLY you can eviscerate while they're still alive these same animals if it's for industry.

I wouldn't support that notion either, but that model being an unfair and inefficient form of government wouldn't make the other a better choice.

Uh... yeah it does.
"Two people will **** you and stab you to death. Two people will beat you unconscious. Choose one of these scenarios"
"Hmm... I can't, they're both bad, which means neither is a better choice."