undefined | Better HN

0 pointsedent3y ago0 comments

The traditional view is that "The workers control the means of production".

Suppose you built a successful small company but, suddenly, every employee quit at once. Could your business carry on the next day? Could it survive until you hired and trained replacements?

If the answer is "no" then you have made the case that employees both deserve to share in the business's success and will probably be incentivised by co-owning the company.

Does the janitor deserve as much of the profits as the CTO? Well, what premium do you put on your other employees not getting sick, or injuring themselves?

(Wasn't there a case where a Google chef made a fortune from stocks? Much to the chagrin of some?)

The opposite argument is that those who risk capital are the only ones who deserve the reward. Without investment, a company can't launch or grow. Workers are an operational cost - they are paid for labour and no more deserving of reward than the electricity company. Both provide a service but neither takes a risk.

0 comments

nec4b3y ago

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

edentOP3y ago

I would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value.

Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades.

I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future.

I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.

nec4b3y ago

And if the house depreciates, should the carpenter then help him with the mortgage payments?

slowmovintarget3y ago

No. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work.

He's not entitled to additional value the recipient of the work may or may not get from him completing the job, unless he negotiates that up front. It seems likely that no one in their right mind would agree to pay the carpenter profit sharing for every transaction that may occur from that building. They'd find another carpenter.

8f2ab37a-ed6c3y ago

Could you make the argument that the carpenter should be given the option to be paid in equity or in cash, if both parties agree to it? Is there any argument against giving people the option to choose the sort of compensation risk profile that works best for their individual situation?

runarberg3y ago

This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise).

A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

nec4b3y ago

>> This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise).

I commend you for knowing logical fallacies. Though it would be even better if you were able to demonstrate those fallacies instead appealing to your own authority.

>> A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

I agree. Unfortunately, some people here claim developers working for google are entitled to their share of google's profits and carpenters working for said developers are not entitled to a share of profits from what those developers earn.

1 more reply

pclmulqdq3y ago

In most cases, they do co-own the company, through stock and options grants. Particularly so for the early employees who are not replaceable.

At Google's scale, everyone is replaceable, including Jeff Dean, Sundar Pichai, and everyone else who you think is "instrumental."

8f2ab37a-ed6c3y ago

I imagine the steelman version of the argument here is: yes, they do own part of the company, that portion of upside and control is so minuscule that it's almost insignificant. And thus we're back to needing unions to advocating on behalf of workers so that they get to own a bigger slice of the pie.

AnimalMuppet3y ago

Neither view will do.

The company can't succeed without the workers. The company also can't succeed without capital. Both deserve to get a cut of the rewards.

runarberg3y ago

This neglects the reality that loans exist. In an ideal leftist world your local credit union redistributes wealth by collecting pepole’s savings from the community and hands them out as loans for slightly higher interest rate. That interest rate is the “cut” of the rewards. If an enterprise goes bankrupt and is unable to pay back the loan, there is usually some kind of insurance the credit union has to prevent going under with it.

goatlover3y ago

That sounds like a world in which everyone ends up worse off. Maybe it’s more equal, but I value standard of living and opportunity more than equal outcomes.

edentOP3y ago

Exactly.

slowmovintarget3y ago

That's the traditional Marxist view. It is not the traditional view.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsedent3y ago0 comments

The traditional view is that "The workers control the means of production".

Suppose you built a successful small company but, suddenly, every employee quit at once. Could your business carry on the next day? Could it survive until you hired and trained replacements?

If the answer is "no" then you have made the case that employees both deserve to share in the business's success and will probably be incentivised by co-owning the company.

Does the janitor deserve as much of the profits as the CTO? Well, what premium do you put on your other employees not getting sick, or injuring themselves?

(Wasn't there a case where a Google chef made a fortune from stocks? Much to the chagrin of some?)

0 comments

nec4b3y ago

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

edentOP3y ago

I would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value.

I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.

nec4b3y ago

And if the house depreciates, should the carpenter then help him with the mortgage payments?

slowmovintarget3y ago

No. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work.

8f2ab37a-ed6c3y ago

runarberg3y ago

This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise).

A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

nec4b3y ago

>> This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise).

I commend you for knowing logical fallacies. Though it would be even better if you were able to demonstrate those fallacies instead appealing to your own authority.

>> A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

1 more reply

pclmulqdq3y ago

In most cases, they do co-own the company, through stock and options grants. Particularly so for the early employees who are not replaceable.

At Google's scale, everyone is replaceable, including Jeff Dean, Sundar Pichai, and everyone else who you think is "instrumental."

8f2ab37a-ed6c3y ago

AnimalMuppet3y ago

Neither view will do.

The company can't succeed without the workers. The company also can't succeed without capital. Both deserve to get a cut of the rewards.

runarberg3y ago

goatlover3y ago

That sounds like a world in which everyone ends up worse off. Maybe it’s more equal, but I value standard of living and opportunity more than equal outcomes.

edentOP3y ago

Exactly.

slowmovintarget3y ago

That's the traditional Marxist view. It is not the traditional view.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse