I understand what you are saying but there are two important factors that change the whole story. The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
The second thing is under a socialistic structure the amount of overall wealth will be reduced. I had two jobs, I worked for Megacorp as an engineer, and I renovated houses. I personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked, I would not have done it. Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
All this to say that sure the worker could get more money, but the whole society would be poorer so it is a bad exchange.
No, I don’t think you do. The reason I don’t think you do is because you made this criticism:
personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked,
How would that play out in the scenarios I described?
You would have earned $34/he for the first 40 hours, then $51/hr for the overtime. You would have received the direct, time-and-a-half pay for your labor.
But then, you don’t have an external shareholder to pay: you get a fair share of the company profits. Not just what you produced, but what the company produced.
I didn’t adequately define a method for determining a fair share. I assumed every worker was working the same number of hours, so there was no need to consider workaholics like yourself.
But the solution is simple: each worker receives $34/hr straight time, $51/hr overtime, just as we do it now. Additionally, each worker receives 1 share for each hour of their labor, and the company periodically buys back those shares by evenly dividing the profits earned during that period. Your regular co-workers earn 40 shares a week; you, the workaholic, earn 70 or 80 shares.
Your criticism that you don’t get the direct benefit of your labor is simply wrong: you still earn your hourly wage, you just also earn a profit when the company does.
Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
Exactly: those “negative things” are the value of your labor being transferred away from you, and to the shareholders. When you were self employed, you were the shareholder; you received the value of your labor. When you are part of a co-op, you are also a shareholder. You are more “self-employed” than a worker for a megacorp.
but the whole society would be poorer
Elaborate, please. The only people who would be poorer are people who put in no work, but expect to be paid anyway: the shareholders in a capitalist society.
The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
Nothing I described requires government involvement in business operations. What I described is a simple “partnership” business model: each of the partners is entitled to a share of the company profits. Government does not define a partnership; the partners do.
The government’s involvement is not in the operation, but merely in the incentivization. Tax code could be structured to favor a broad base of owners, and punitively discourage billion-dollar companies from being solely or majority owned by single entities.
I understand what you are saying but there are two important factors that change the whole story. The first one is simple, the government does everything abysmally. Its just a nature of how these things work, so everything would be less effcient.
The second thing is under a socialistic structure the amount of overall wealth will be reduced. I had two jobs, I worked for Megacorp as an engineer, and I renovated houses. I personally used to work 70-80 hours per week, if I didnt get the direct benefit from the 30-40 extra hours I worked, I would not have done it. Also when I was doing self employed work I worked very hard and was very efficient with my time. In Megacorp I did exactly what I was told and no more, I would literally only have negative things happen if I did more.
All this to say that sure the worker could get more money, but the whole society would be poorer so it is a bad exchange.
No, I don’t think you do. The reason I don’t think you do is because you made this criticism:
How would that play out in the scenarios I described?
You would have earned $34/he for the first 40 hours, then $51/hr for the overtime. You would have received the direct, time-and-a-half pay for your labor.
But then, you don’t have an external shareholder to pay: you get a fair share of the company profits. Not just what you produced, but what the company produced.
I didn’t adequately define a method for determining a fair share. I assumed every worker was working the same number of hours, so there was no need to consider workaholics like yourself.
But the solution is simple: each worker receives $34/hr straight time, $51/hr overtime, just as we do it now. Additionally, each worker receives 1 share for each hour of their labor, and the company periodically buys back those shares by evenly dividing the profits earned during that period. Your regular co-workers earn 40 shares a week; you, the workaholic, earn 70 or 80 shares.
Your criticism that you don’t get the direct benefit of your labor is simply wrong: you still earn your hourly wage, you just also earn a profit when the company does.
Exactly: those “negative things” are the value of your labor being transferred away from you, and to the shareholders. When you were self employed, you were the shareholder; you received the value of your labor. When you are part of a co-op, you are also a shareholder. You are more “self-employed” than a worker for a megacorp.
Elaborate, please. The only people who would be poorer are people who put in no work, but expect to be paid anyway: the shareholders in a capitalist society.
Nothing I described requires government involvement in business operations. What I described is a simple “partnership” business model: each of the partners is entitled to a share of the company profits. Government does not define a partnership; the partners do.
The government’s involvement is not in the operation, but merely in the incentivization. Tax code could be structured to favor a broad base of owners, and punitively discourage billion-dollar companies from being solely or majority owned by single entities.