Most [publicly traded] companies are small [citation needed] and don't have unions [citation needed], let alone that unions are not famous as beacons of competence in running companies.
They don't have to be famous beacons of competence at running companies. They just have to be better than your average MBA. Which isn't saying all that much.
Not really, especially when the company is private.
You mentioned earlier that you owned stock. When was the last time you voted at a general assembly, or attended a meeting at the board of directors in any of the companies you held stocks in?
I thought you mentioned employees joining in the board of directors, not just sending in some representatives.
Union reps are normally employees themselves.
Besides there is the small issue that owing a company is not quite the same kind of decision entitlement as working for one,
Why not? The "owners" supply only money, and they only supply it once. The workers supply labour, and they supply it every day. Why shouldn't the workers have as much say in the running of the company as the "owners?"
Of course not, that was precisely my point - a company does not make political decisions, but tactical and strategical ones in order to win market share.
In which alternate universe does that not involve political decisions?
Just like in the case of rentiers, we should distinguish mammoth companies, particularly multinationals, and the xillions of small companies which provide most of the value and employ, I think, the most.
Small companies are not publicly traded, and usually do not benefit from limited liability, so my proposed reform would not apply to them.
The distribution issue is normally said to be a matter of negotiation on the job market. I argued once that this is often skewed in favour of employers - except top positions or niche jobs. Maybe salaries should be completely regulated, as in, a percentage (fixed or mobile) of the benefits, negotiated by unions for each industry and job level.
That's certainly one way of doing it. I'm not sure it's necessary to go quite that far, though. I think much could be achieved simply by enshrining the right to organise, strike and blockade, and making union busting punishable by very serious fines (to the tune of a perceptible percentage of gross revenues). But that's mostly because I believe that the local union rep has a better handle on what should be done in a specific company than parliament does.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
"Besides there is the small issue that owing a company is not quite the same kind of decision entitlement as working for one (me)
Why not? (you)
Simplifying, the idea of the nanny having a say in how I run my house strikes me as a bit odd :) I know that's not at all what you propose, but it's a matter of principle nonetheless: to me, the right to own property and the right to speak freely go before everything else, and any kind of adjustment you would bring to the society, these two should not be trespassed, under no circumstance. There is no capitalism and no freedom without these two. When I built a house, bought a car, or set up a company, I am not ready to and I think it fundamentally wrong to discuss the issue of ownership and decision making. I don't even think this is a matter of rightwing vs leftwing, but of a fundamental human right as important as any other. Beyond appropriate work conditions and equitable pay, it is for the individual and the state to assume - be it social security, medical insurance, retirement insurance or pension system, and so on. The state can of course levy taxes, exactly when and how it sees fit, and regulate the job market and the economical environment as it pleases, as long as it doesn't infringe on my own fundamental rights as an individual(exceptional situations aside). Social inequalities should be tackled, but not serve as a motivation to step upon fundamental rights, and this applies to any such right. Workforce can under no circumstance be considered as a merchandise, but enterprises are hardly meant as social care entities, and regulation should be limited to work conditions and the job market - the rest is for the society to provide (and we're all part of the society, so this is not a matter of protecting the property of the rich and powerful, but dealing with it without stepping upon principles). This is why I'd be ready to accept any kind of remuneration cap, remuneration incentive regulation, particularly via fiscal tools, in short, any kind of sharing into the profit. The issue of ownership and decision making though is a whole different thing. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I'm pretty sure our bone of contention starts and ends here:
I think that's an astute observation, even if I disagree with you on whether it's a left-right issue.
But the way I see it, nobody forces companies to be publicly traded and benefit from limited liability. If the companies' owners think that the demands that society places upon them in return for these privileges are too onerous, they are perfectly free to withdraw the company from the Exchange, as provided for by the applicable rules.
More generally, I don't think that property scales. I have nothing against the corner-store owner with two employees deciding how he wants to run his business - he doesn't have notably more bargaining power than his employees do individually. But when a company spans an entire country and employs hundreds of people... then it becomes a political entity, as much as a commercial one. And then different rules apply. Or ought to apply.
It's no longer purely a private concern. The mythology that it should be a private concern, irrespective of social and political influence, is one of the flawed neo-feudal cornerstones of the rightwing edifice.
I wonder if even rightwingers still claim that, regarding multinationals and other giant companies.
Yes. Unfortunately, they do.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go take a shower.
It remains that even from a rightwing point of view, monopolies and multinationals are an obvious obstacle to healthy competition. I mean, either you're a freemarketeer, or you're not.
I would think so too. But apparently I'm wrong, at least according to several people I know whose credentials as "right-wingers" I have no reason to doubt (their sanity, yes, but not their political leanings).
There exists an unfortunately influential ideology in some right-wing circles that says that regulation of transnational companies is a greater imposition on personal liberty than permitting these transnational companies to run wild. The same doctrine also states that the "free" in "free market" means "free from government intervention," but does not say anything about freedom from exercise of monopoly power (the Austrian school of thought [I use the term loosely] even deny that monopolies can exercise power).
I wonder if the circles circulating this doctrine would exist elsewhere than the United States. Due to many factors, the idea that the state is "bad" in principle is unfortunately almost cosubstantial with the US. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
I know that's not at all what you propose, but it's a matter of principle nonetheless: to me, the right to own property and the right to speak freely go before everything else, and any kind of adjustment you would bring to the society, these two should not be trespassed, under no circumstance.
I agree that we should have the right to exclusive occupation of land.
But IMHO land is a Commons to which no-one has absolute rights of ownership and those exercising this privilege of exclusive occupation should compensate those they exclude ie the rest of Society.
So I agree with the principle that taxes should be levied on privilege, not people, and therefore advocate a tax on land rental values or "Location benefit levy"
Other privileges, such as exclusive use of non-renewables, or the privilege of limitation of liability, should also be taxed, and taxes on profits and earned income should be abolished. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
