On being the right size (1928) • Hacker News Board

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#61

Post by lrem » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:11 AM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #45

bcoates wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs This implies they would be making the wrong decisions then, no? There needs to be some mechanism to decide who does what, or otherwise some goods and services will be produced in proportions well exceeding any possible demand. > The main idea is to make the enterprises benefit those who do the actual work and also make them accoun…

The idea is to retain the good qualities of capitalism which is self-optimization and market-based decision making. The bootmaker and the nailmakers would be autonomous agents making decisions in their best interests. The bootmakers can buy nails from whoever they want, but if the market then rejects their boots because of shoddy nails, they will have to adapt. Also worth pointing out that in a specialized economy, m…

Wasn't the superior adaptability of those cheap Chinese suppliers a big part of why Apple moved there?

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#62

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:11 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #59

gnarbarian wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't undermine my argument. I said they compete on quality. Unions can be just as tyrannical as a monopoly. If German companies didn't produce better cars than cheaper countries there would be no reason to buy them and very few people would. Added to my above comment: "For clarification sake I'm saying that the mass of people at the bottom of an organization can have demands that conflict with the survival of t…

The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to…

I fail to see a problem with this at all.

1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place.

2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means.

I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining that they can't support their numerous kids. NO SHIT. you are not entitled to a wage capable of supporting other people.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#63

Post by k__ » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:20 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #62

k__ wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is, that the demands, that can destroy a company, still can be real demands. The company says, it has to pay you $5 per hour or they couldn't employ you and it isn't even lying. You say, you can't work for a wage below $10 per hour and your reasons for this are valid, too. If the company wins, the workers can't live from their wage. If the workers win, the company can't employ enough of them to…

I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining t…

This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job.

There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#64

Post by gabemart » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:22 AM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

What's to stop the type of co-op based company you describe becoming popular in the current market system?

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#65

Post by lmm » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:23 AM UTC

gnarbarian wrote: post #22

breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

One problem with this is people as a group tend to be stupid. What stops the workforce from voting to reduce their work hours to 30 hours per week? Take the Automotive unions as an example. Their demands contributed in many ways to the US auto companies nearly going bankrupt and requiring state bailouts. Moving manufacturing to cheaper places can have a bad local effect in pockets that depend on it, but there is a ne…

>Now, foreign companies produce many of their cars in the united states with union free labor and american companies have started producing cars in mexico so they can pay the pensions for all the retired union employees.

Toyota's plants are UAW who makes the same demands as they do to GM. It's management that failed the US car industry, not the unions.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#66

Post by epsylon » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:24 AM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

Coops, exactly. These days I'm reading the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson (WARNING: minor spoilers), and he mentions a lot the system of coops in the new Martian economy. One of the examples mentioned is a real-life one: the Mondragón Corporation, the world's largest coop with 80,000 employees and more than 14 billion euros in revenue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Cor...

(For anyone interested in economics, politics, geology and many other topics, this Hugo-winning trilogy is a great read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_trilogy)

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#67

Post by paganel » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:24 AM UTC

breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

> If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs

That would benefit said workers themselves, but the cost (because there is a cost) will be shouldered by some other people living in the same country. In other words this is protectionism pure and simple, in the long run is detrimental for everyone involved.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#68

Post by gnarbarian » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:25 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #63

gnarbarian wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see a problem with this at all. 1: The company goes out of business (due to inefficiency and an inability to compete) in which case it was a shitty business and shouldn't exist in the first place. 2: The company hires someone who can do the work for $5 per hour, in which case the worker who needs $10 to live is simply not living within their means. I equate this to someone earning minimum wage complaining t…

This is what seems logical, but most of the time the second thing will happen, because there are many people who think every job is better than no job. There are lesser jobs than people, so the companies have the bigger lever.

If the employee possesses desirable skills that are in fact worth $10 they can seek that employment elsewhere. If they cannot offer anything over the $5 employee it's a waste to pay them more.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#69

Post by cynicalkane » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:32 AM UTC

bcoates wrote: post #33

breakyerself wrote: post #13

This is really an argument against socialism as the communists tried to implement it. Where the state nationalizes every industry and all workers become employed by the state which plans everything centrally. Most socialists have moved beyond that model and would instead prefer to see a system of enterprise that uses co-op's instead of privately or publicly owned business. Some industries would probably be nationaliz…

> If the workers decided these things they would never vote to outsource their own jobs This implies they would be making the wrong decisions then, no? There needs to be some mechanism to decide who does what, or otherwise some goods and services will be produced in proportions well exceeding any possible demand. > The main idea is to make the enterprises benefit those who do the actual work and also make them accoun…

In practice, the trouble of resolving supply and demand problems politically have been far more disastrous than the problem of planning supply and demand.

I find the Austrian-influenced critique of communism unconvincing. Many Communist countries chugged right along, growing their economies at a pace that alarmed Western observers, before they sagged and broke down under their increasingly cruel, incompetent, kleptomaniacal, bureaucratic government systems. But before this happened people were afraid Communism could actually win. When Khrushchev said "we will bury you" people took him seriously. But if von Mises was right they should never have gotten anywhere in the first place. Also consider that the internal economy of any real-world corporation is 'centrally planned' in a limited sense. When you call up the HR department or tech support, you don't have to pay them for their labor.

Hayek was the Austrian that got it right--it's not that central planning is inefficient, it's that efficient central planning for a broad market economy can only be accomplished when you begin to devalue the actions of the humans of the world that aren't in line with what the planners want. Eventually, what is lost is all incentives for planners to plan for anyone but themselves. This goes all the way back to Marx, who would talk about things like how capitalists as a social class do not really provide 'labor value'; that the capitalist even makes money at all is an accident of human organization and that they are not really valuable or needed in the world. To the hardcore Marxist, capitalists are not merely overpaid, they are in fact worthless by definition.

Re: On being the right size (1928)

#70

Post by jl6 » Mon, Oct 14, 2013, 9:33 AM UTC

tehwalrus wrote: post #34

jl6 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>someone other than the people doing the work get to decide how the work is done and how to spend the surplus of value that work generates. Who do you mean here? Foreman, manager, executive, owner... these are all real jobs that do real work.

Out of interest, what do you think an 'owner' does in an enterprise with an executive branch, apart from supplying passive capital at the start?

Owners ensure the efficient allocation of capital. Their job is to pull investment from unprofitable activities and move it to profitable ones. They may only make one or two decisions a year, but those are weighty decisions with large consequences. With good decisions may come large profits with what looks to an outsider to be little effort, but they may also lose it all with just one mistake... appointing the wrong CEO, or failing to liquidate the company when it ceases to be profitable...

Now there may certainly be issues with corporate governance and conflict with non-financial goals like environmental sustainability, but that's a wholly different complaint to the suggestion that there is a non-working class at the helm.