this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
709 points (95.4% liked)

General Discussion

12038 readers
225 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are 2 risk reduction strategies commitment-based and diversification based. The diversification-based strategy is the usual spread your eggs across many baskets strategy, but there is also a commitment-based dual strategy where you put your eggs in a few baskets and watch over them carefully.

Workers in coops can share risks with investors with non-voting preferred shares and other financial instruments. They can diversify by investing in other worker coops non-voting shares

@general

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Ok but now you've just reinvented the regular stock market. Line must go up.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but in the same way that proportional representation is just reinventing democratic process.

A lot of problems in our world today is created by shareholder model. People in Dubai owning and voting on the future of a company that sells drinks is more likely to be okay if that company drains a lake in Missouri than the people in Missouri would. They're ok to stagnate wages if profits are returned to share holders. They're ok if benefits are cut. It all stems from the idea that the people who make those decisions are making them as technical employees of the share holders. Because that's essentially what these companies become when they go public. The executives work for share holders. Those share holders have no connection to the way the company runs or makes choices. It's like a sociopath there no moral decion making by design.

By making companies employee owned you bring the local people to the table to help make decision. You place the executives and board ina position where they have to appease share holders and if a portion of those are employees you will begin to solve a lot of our current issues. Pay, workers rights, health benefits.

Likewise the employees also are more invested in the profits of the company. It goes both ways.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you're focusing too much on voting rights. Even if investors don't vote on the actions of a company, they have a financial interest in seeing that company grow, which incentivises unethical but profitable actions by the company. Worker owned or not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

It's actually at the heart of this. I haven't said it but think about ethical business decision making. How does a business make decisions. How are the decision makers working for. Why do they not make ethical choices.

Share holders do not care about the workers getting higher wages. They are not impacted if a company cuts corners and destroys the environment in someone else's backyard. They don't care if Nestle drains a lake in Missouri. The people who care about that are locals.

What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals. That's what these cooperatives and other models do. They include locals and put them in those relationship with the executive level where the executives need to make locals happy along with other shareholders. It injects more ethical decision making into business decision making. More than exist now.

This model works in place like Spain where it has led to decade's success during even economic downturns and is reflected in how happy the people are in areas that use this type of model.

[–] explodicle 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is a purely hypothetical concern that may have already been addressed...

Is there any mechanism that can align local co-op incentives with global problems? So would the factory worker in Missouri care just as little about climate change as the investor in Dubai?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Doubtful, it's not a solution but it is something I think could be better than having an Elon or Bezos at the helm of these things and praying that the next huge monopoly man may be benevolent. Even though benevolence is filtered out of businesses at a much lower level before a company goes public.

The hope would be that the people in Dubai are also represented. Since they are represented there would be more effort needed to decide to make choice.

And nothing says the people in Missouri wouldn't just be happy draining their own lake. Point would be that they're at least getting a say and will have to actually face their community rather than some executive.

It's a step towards something better rather than a panacea

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

What if the executives who make the choices to do all those unethical actions actually are answering to locals.

That's what I'm saying, dude. Sure, the locals have the voting rights. But there's also a huge pool of external investors who want to see the company make more money. They act as a leveraging effect on the value of the stock, for voters (employees) and non voters alike.

If the company decides to do something good like switch to 100% renewable energy, investors sell and everyone's stock loses value. The employees see their retirement fund tank.

If the company decides to do something bad like outsource all their labor to children in the 3rd world, investors buy and everyone's stock rises a lot.

Every decision that the company makes, they'll have the investors in mind.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not quite. Voting rights over firm governance are non-transferable/inalienable. The employer-employee contract is abolished, and everyone is always individually or jointly self-employed.

Incorporating social objectives should be done at the level of associations of worker coops

@general

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Ok, but you've still introduced a profit motive, which is inevitably corrupting. Most extant shares of most companies today are non voting shares.