151–160 of 311 posts
> That sentiment is echoed by Mondragón’s 70,000 other workers.
According to SCMP [1], Huawei has over 130,000 shareholding employees 3 years ago. So the "globe's largest" claim seems factually incorrect.
[1] - https://www.scmp.com/business/article/3173121/huawei-pays-ou...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the idea is you replace individuals who solely manage across the board, with the idea management is really a part time job. That so many executives split their time would suggest that might very well be the case. With that in mind, there are many efficiencies imaginable beyond just the C-suite. And the employees now have ownership, so they have more of a reason to take up more responsibility than the curren…
Huh, that sounds like taking yet another full-time job and smearing its workload across everyone. That already happened with quite a lot of occupations - thanks to "increased productivity" brought by computers, a typical white-collar employee is now also doing the job of a secretary (calendar, mail, setting up meetings), graphics department (PowerPoint), financial department (managing and reporting travel expenses),…
You started the paragraph with the word "workload," but here the load is about as close to zero for the average employee as one could get without being pedantic about it.
People aren't using virtual brushes and learning color theory to digitally paint their PowerPoints, or even composing their slides effectively in the visual space provided as a graphic designer would in Photoshop. They are writing and revising their drafts in PowerPoint, often using the default templates or perhaps 2-3 minutes of trying out different themes.
That ends up smearing all the costs and benefits of default PowerPoint look-and-feel across the audience for all these boring presentations.
But I claim the cost to the employee's time and education due to them technically having taken on the responsibilities of a graphic designer are, on average, effectively zero.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree that capitalism as we know it is highly flawed, but history has proven that socialism is not the answer.
Think you are mixing up Communism and Socialism. Socialism is alive and well and working. Every major capitalist society today (including US) has a percentage of Socialism sprinkled in to keep it functioning. Pure capitalism leads to a brutish tragic world, so some socialism is added to at least keep people from outright starving and rising up in revolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask the average American worker if they'd like an extra $2300 a year. And yes I understand thats pre-tax. But even so, thats a non-negligible amount for a lot of people.
For whom $2,300 / year is meaningful is, dare I say, hard to answer question. Most of the people for whom an additional $2,300 / year is meaningful pay little to no taxes. However, a large chunk of these people also get Earning Income Credit. These people would lose at least part of this credit if their income increases. This question I believe can be answered by the bi-partisan U.S. Government Accountability Office…
Say an employee effectively gets $10 less money, but the company effectively now pays the government $1000 in the same period. That might mean new bus subsidies, legal aid, development grants... things which make everyone slightly better off in the long-term. I think that's a good trade-off.
For all the fearmongering of the Red Scare, this is what socialism looks like. Socialism is an industrial co-op like this where workers are fairly paid for their labor. Capitalism is Walmart where all profits are captured by a handful of shareholders and executives, being subsidized by the Federal government through food stamps to employees and decimating local economies to the point where they're left with dollar st…
https://distributistreview.com/archive/mondragon-revisited?f...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of the yearly complaint in French politics that CAC40 companies are paying monstrous dividends, to which the answer is always: If they are so monstrous then surely you should simply buy the shares yourself? You could just be an Amazon or a Walmart shareholder by logging into your Robinhood account, unlike the feudal regime where to become an aristocrat you would need to be some sort of famous knight,…
First, intended or not there is an incredible amount of privilege in the idea that “everyone can be a shareholder”. An awful lot of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck and struggle to afford housing and food. Increasing homelessness is, first and foremost, a consequence of housing unaffordability. Second, owning 10 shares of Amazon doesn’t make you a capital owner. If you still need your paycheck to survive, you’re a…
The definition of capital owner being someone who doesn't need a paycheck to survive is weird. Your average startup founder needs a paycheck and he is clearly not a simple worker. As soon as you own shares in a company(or a bond) you are a capital owner. The question is then how much that capital is worth and what you can do to make this capital worth more.