141–150 of 176 posts
Nowhere did he mention salary levels. The main reason we work is to make money, if worker cooperatives makes you less money then that would be the biggest reason to not join one. I really doubt there are many cooperatives paying more than FAANG, so why not just join one of those instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why does it make total sense that people are interested? Because that way you can finance a bunch of useless moochers who "administer your coop". Smells like typical rent seeking.
If you're worried about rent seeking wait till you find out how a traditional business works. The owner of the company takes all the profit, and then pays out a small portion of that profit to the workers doing the work in form of wages. On the other hand, in a coop the profit is shared fairly amongst the people actually doing the work. It's frankly incredibly that somebody thinks this is a worse model of compensatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most coops tend to be registered as nonprofits in my part of the world for tax reasons, and others have an elected board which distributes earnings though a share structure to members. You have failed to provide data to explain the context of your input. Thus, still remain off-topic, and orthogonal to the line of observations corroborated with other members experiences. As initially inferred, unaccountable individual…
did you read the paper they shared?
Talented people with options tend to identify such situations, become disenchanted with being exploited, and eventually leave.
Enhance your calm =)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Members do barter between each other, and members sometimes organize micro-credits between each other the central structure takes no percentage from those transactions. We encourage them to happen even if they are a bit more work with no moneraty compensation to the central structure. Whatever makes projects and cooperators thrive in the coop the management will very likely support it. It makes the whole ecossystem h…
How does it work from a commitment standpoint? Do you have to give something like a full time equivalent once you're in, or you're free to do how many hours you want (I presume with some minimum) while there is available work overlapping with your skillset?
People directly earn the money they generate so they choose how much they want to work.
But damn, "getting fired coz most of your coworkers wanted you gone" gonna hurt more than getting fired by some manager.
I'm going to counter this a bit -- if most of your coworkers want you gone, do you want to work there? Does it make sense to continue or would staying just mean continuing a toxic relationship for all parties? I think this just formalizes the quiet grumblings of people who who think "how is x person still here, they don't carry their weight" etc. I think a more important concern is how does an org ensure that people…
There are two things here, "competent", and "nice to work with". I've met co-workers that are perfectly nice people, I thought they do shit work but I wasn't the one paying them so I didn't really cared if they stayed working. Yeah they are negative for the company but I personally don't care, more than that, working with pleasant people is worth more to me than company being that 0.5% more efficient by not employing them.
That does shit a bit in coop as your share in profit grows when someone bad at the job gets fired.
> I think a more important concern is how does an org ensure that people remain tolerant and accommodating (both in legally required ways and in ways that expand your views and ideas) of people that may not mesh perfectly? I don't think a "divorce" of the org should be frowned upon and I think many orgs ought to codify how they sever to account for the possibility that people don't agree. I don't, however, believe that it's good to avoid conflict and sever every org over every meaningless spat.
Yeah I can imagine that being even harder the more interconnected the org structure is, people are naturally tribal
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're worried about rent seeking wait till you find out how a traditional business works. The owner of the company takes all the profit, and then pays out a small portion of that profit to the workers doing the work in form of wages. On the other hand, in a coop the profit is shared fairly amongst the people actually doing the work. It's frankly incredibly that somebody thinks this is a worse model of compensatio…
Your communism is showing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why does it make total sense that people are interested? Because that way you can finance a bunch of useless moochers who "administer your coop". Smells like typical rent seeking.
If you're worried about rent seeking wait till you find out how a traditional business works. The owner of the company takes all the profit, and then pays out a small portion of that profit to the workers doing the work in form of wages. On the other hand, in a coop the profit is shared fairly amongst the people actually doing the work. It's frankly incredibly that somebody thinks this is a worse model of compensatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're worried about rent seeking wait till you find out how a traditional business works. The owner of the company takes all the profit, and then pays out a small portion of that profit to the workers doing the work in form of wages. On the other hand, in a coop the profit is shared fairly amongst the people actually doing the work. It's frankly incredibly that somebody thinks this is a worse model of compensatio…
The labor theory of value has basically never been shown to work, while the subjective theory of value, however many its flaws, has been shown to work and bring us the world we see today.
It’s high time I stopped reading Medium articles shared here. I got the distinct feeling I was being sold something while reading it, and the last paragraph confirmed it. It’s filled with vague, corporatey platitudes about ego and altruism, and there’s almost nothing in it about how this concept applies specifically to tech . The supposed “cons” sound like the ad equivalents of leading questions: > The relationships…
I find non-monetized content generally to have higher quality than monetized ones. The author is intrinsically motivated to produce quality and there is no other goal other than to share what they have with the world.