Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[OngBonga]

Fair points.

Ok so instead of giving new employees profit share, we give people who have worked at the company for 12 months a profit share, assuming they have met fair productivity targets.

Let's now apply this to my new employee watering my plants. If all he does for 12 months is water my plants, well he's not going to keep his job. I want him pruning the plants too, monitoring pH and humidity levels, pest control, driving to the store to get supplies, perhaps even dealing with buyers... if he's doing all this, well he's earning a share of the profits. That might not be outright ownership, it could just be an annual profit related bonus. Or maybe shares every year of employment to gradually increase his interest. One thing is for sure, you're right that I wouldn't want to give a new employee a slice of the business before he's even proved his worth. I recognise that will stifle innovation.

But if he does prove his worth... well giving him a slice might make such a difference to productivity that I end up making more money too. It would certainly be prudent of me to consider such a scheme, calculating how much extra productivity I need for it to be mutually beneficial.

If he's just getting an hourly wage, well all he'll do is what his job description tells him to do. If he's got a vested interest in the company, well he might start taking more care of the plants, which will have a beneficial effect on yield.

You make a fine argument, but I'm yet to be convinced the problems you outline can't be overcome.

[Savy]

If he's just getting an hourly wage, well all he'll do is what his job description tells him to do. If he's got a vested interest in the company, well he might start taking more care of the plants, which will have a beneficial effect on yield.

Why do you think this is true? When I first started in a job earning just over minimum wage on a zero hours contract I went above and beyond whilst having no intention to stay there long enough to gain any benefits from this in terms of longer term employment, more money, promotions, professional development, etc. It wasn't even in an industry I wanted to work.

[OngBonga]

Why do you think this is true? When I first started in a job earning just over minimum wage on a zero hours contract I went above and beyond whilst having no intention to stay there long enough to gain any benefits from this in terms of longer term employment, more money, promotions, professional development, etc. It wasn't even in an industry I wanted to work.

You're a rare breed if you're doing more than expected on a zero hours contract with no hope or even ambition of development.

I wouldn't even take a zero hours contract. You were talking of security being an incentive not so long ago. You don't even have that, and you're grafting. Yeah, a rare breed. Either that or naively keen to make an impression.

[Savy]

You're a rare breed if you're doing more than expected on a zero hours contract with no hope or even ambition of development.

I wouldn't even take a zero hours contract. You were talking of security being an incentive not so long ago. You don't even have that, and you're grafting. Yeah, a rare breed. Either that or naively keen to make an impression.

Zero hours contract actually was ideal for me. It meant when I didn't want to go to work I didn't go. If I wanted to take some time off I did. If anything it benefited me much more than the company using it. You're obviously thinking when people exploit them and have tonnes of workers on them who they force into poor working conditions with the threat of no work.

[wufwugy]

Fair points.

Ok so instead of giving new employees profit share, we give people who have worked at the company for 12 months a profit share, assuming they have met fair productivity targets.

Let's now apply this to my new employee watering my plants. If all he does for 12 months is water my plants, well he's not going to keep his job. I want him pruning the plants too, monitoring pH and humidity levels, pest control, driving to the store to get supplies, perhaps even dealing with buyers... if he's doing all this, well he's earning a share of the profits. That might not be outright ownership, it could just be an annual profit related bonus. Or maybe shares every year of employment to gradually increase his interest. One thing is for sure, you're right that I wouldn't want to give a new employee a slice of the business before he's even proved his worth. I recognise that will stifle innovation.

But if he does prove his worth... well giving him a slice might make such a difference to productivity that I end up making more money too. It would certainly be prudent of me to consider such a scheme, calculating how much extra productivity I need for it to be mutually beneficial.

If he's just getting an hourly wage, well all he'll do is what his job description tells him to do. If he's got a vested interest in the company, well he might start taking more care of the plants, which will have a beneficial effect on yield.

You make a fine argument, but I'm yet to be convinced the problems you outline can't be overcome.

You're totally right and you are free to run your business that way. If it worked out better that way, you'd be silly to not do it.

It's just that for the most part it doesn't work better this way, but people are totally free to do it this way (and some do). In fact, I suspect that some businesses are actually more productive as co-ops (or at least provide more utility), just not a whole lot are. Co-ops take a certain kind of person. I remember when I visited Bellingham, Washington a lot (weed capital of the world btw), they had a co-op grocery/restaurant. It was a very popular destination, but also very niche. The Bellingham town area is populated by lots of people who don't want to live any other way but small, basic, and laid back.


A point I'll make about your hypothetical is that the 12 month mandate mark would also cause lots of problems. We'd see an abundance of people working up to the 12 month mark then being let go. It's an unintended consequence of regulation, which to solve requires more regulation, which causes more unintended consequences, which...you know how this one goes.