I don't understand why risk are reward are treated as though they must all be given to one side or the other. In reality, it takes both the owners and the workers to make a successful business. The contributions of both are valuable, and deserve full compensation. Hence, the rewards of success ought to be split more equitably than they are today in most cases. I'm OK with Jeff Bezos making millions, but does he need billions while his workers make on the order of $50K / year? Couldn't he make do with one billion? or five billion? Corporate charters are controlled by laws, and those laws could mandate that profits and ownership be split among workers and owners according to some equitable formula, which could be tweaked as experience indicates. Hey, workers could even be included among the owners, automatically, as a matter of law. Is that so wrong?
That's a great idea! In fact, many countries have such laws, which are called "co-determination." If I remember correctly, Germany has really great laws that require companies with over 500 employees give 50% of board seats to elected worker representatives.
I am a business owner and this is legit. The risk is having to become a worker. But... I am always "on". There is no "vacation" without work. I have had plenty of holidays over the years, and have worked during all of them. The potential for legal action goes up when you own a business. PayPal can lock your funds. Staff hide in the warehouse to check phones all day. They make mistakes and send customers the wrong item. You get yelled at by customers and staff. You have a nervous breakdown or two because sales are down. There's a pandemic and you have to stop trading. There's not knowing how much you'll earn from one day to the next. You have no retirement savings because you have to sell the business to make money (if it sells). If you get bored, you can't just "change jobs". There is more to risk than you're letting on. I am a progressive socialist. I grew up with a communist father who was a farmer, and at a time and place when communism was about worker's rights not despotism. Anyway, I just wanted to remind you that this argument is far more nuanced.
These are good points, but many of them are not exclusive to owners. Many workers are always on. This was a chief complaint of railroad workers during the impending strike last fall, and I can attest from my time working in tech that I was expected to work through the night at some cases.
I think you'd enjoy this piece I wrote on Small Businesses & Socialism. Without giving too much away, it outlines the need for us to recognize the difference between small business owners (who do function as workers) and big business owners (who are much less likely to work).
Most businesses fail, and almost none lead to "unlimited reward", whatever that is. If they did lead to unlimited reward, then it would be a reasonable assumption that they also created "unlimited" value for customers willingly buying that product or service in a reasonably free market, and therefore they added "unlimited" value to society. Hence it should be encouraged not derided. Along the way, this "unlimited" value creation machine probably purchased the labor of countless people and the services of countless suppliers and middlemen. Maybe this helps explain why people in modern economies make thirty to forty times what their ancestors did and live twice as long.
As for risky jobs, most jobs today are desk or service jobs or are extremely safe. If someone desires less risk, I suggest they choose these low or zero risk jobs. What was that current unemployment rate again?
Not everyone has the ability to choose a cushy desk job. As someone who worked a few low-risk desk jobs, I can attest getting them requires education and connections usually reserved for the upper classes.
Plus, there is risk in them, too. For example, part of my compensation was in company stock. But as I was let go before the 4-year vesting period, I received none of it. Essentially, I did not get paid for a lot of my work.
Nothing you are saying even closely matches reality. I made the point that jobs in offices and services are widespread and in enough demand that anyone can get them. Safe jobs like cashier, cook, waiter, plumber, receptionist, gardener, data input, customer service rep, and so on. I could add hundreds of jobs and link you to millions of job ads.
The point is that the vast majority of jobs are extremely safe and widely available with anyone able to use their hands or voice. You know this. I know this. So I am not sure why you are writing something different. Nor does anyone have to work for anyone else. Anyone with a tiny bit of initiative can work for themselves for considerable money (my gardener makes over $50 an hour and he was not born in US).
"Workers risk their lives". Yeah, that's one of the problem being alive. You risk death and dishonor on a regular basis. Owners get into car accidents too.
"Owners only risk being workers again". Right. Coz there's no difference between a worker with $10K-40K in his saving account and one with zero/a bankruptcy to his/her name...
There are potential objections to the "owners take all the risks" (say, business founders tend to be privileged enough to believe they can take a risk at all. I think it was a German study that showed that the most constant factor across entrepreneurs/business founders was getting an inheritance windfall allowing them to risk those first $50K or whatever) but it's clearly a weakness in Marxist arguments.
And that doesn't mean that the rewards are fairly distributed in our present day system. Just that your counter arguments to the risk point are pretty weak.
I disagree. First, workers are at INCREASED risk due to their work. It's possible for an owner to get killed in a car crash (obviously), but when your job is to drive around all day, that risk sky rockets.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the number of $10k-$40k in a bank account. The latest figures I saw had the median American with between $4k - $5k in their bank account, which leaves them unable to afford a medical emergency without going into debt.
If the average worker had $40k in their bank account, my critique would differ. But that's actually about 10x what the typical American has saved.
Work is risky to one's health? Surely owning stuff is risky to one's health too? Imagine having to jump into your car to go to all these meetings, all these overly rich business lunches you have to have, all that stress as you're trying to get the company off the ground...
The point about savings was trying to use the numbers you quoted as initial capital. If I am a worker and I've got $40K in the bank (or in house equity) then starting a business, losing it all and being again a worker would leave me in a worse position that if I had remained a worker all along. Sorry for not being clear.
"If I am a worker and I've got $40K in the bank (or in house equity) then starting a business, losing it all and being again a worker would leave me in a worse position that if I had remained a worker all along."
This is the essence of my argument! The person who "risked it all," would not be in a worse place than the person who stayed a worker. They would be in the same place of not enough capital to start a business, meaning they have to become a worker to survive.
It's kind of like a King telling his peasant soldiers before a battle, "I have more to risk than you. You're risking your lives, but I'm risking losing my crown!"
I don't understand why risk are reward are treated as though they must all be given to one side or the other. In reality, it takes both the owners and the workers to make a successful business. The contributions of both are valuable, and deserve full compensation. Hence, the rewards of success ought to be split more equitably than they are today in most cases. I'm OK with Jeff Bezos making millions, but does he need billions while his workers make on the order of $50K / year? Couldn't he make do with one billion? or five billion? Corporate charters are controlled by laws, and those laws could mandate that profits and ownership be split among workers and owners according to some equitable formula, which could be tweaked as experience indicates. Hey, workers could even be included among the owners, automatically, as a matter of law. Is that so wrong?
That's a great idea! In fact, many countries have such laws, which are called "co-determination." If I remember correctly, Germany has really great laws that require companies with over 500 employees give 50% of board seats to elected worker representatives.
I am a business owner and this is legit. The risk is having to become a worker. But... I am always "on". There is no "vacation" without work. I have had plenty of holidays over the years, and have worked during all of them. The potential for legal action goes up when you own a business. PayPal can lock your funds. Staff hide in the warehouse to check phones all day. They make mistakes and send customers the wrong item. You get yelled at by customers and staff. You have a nervous breakdown or two because sales are down. There's a pandemic and you have to stop trading. There's not knowing how much you'll earn from one day to the next. You have no retirement savings because you have to sell the business to make money (if it sells). If you get bored, you can't just "change jobs". There is more to risk than you're letting on. I am a progressive socialist. I grew up with a communist father who was a farmer, and at a time and place when communism was about worker's rights not despotism. Anyway, I just wanted to remind you that this argument is far more nuanced.
Thanks for adding your insights!
These are good points, but many of them are not exclusive to owners. Many workers are always on. This was a chief complaint of railroad workers during the impending strike last fall, and I can attest from my time working in tech that I was expected to work through the night at some cases.
I think you'd enjoy this piece I wrote on Small Businesses & Socialism. Without giving too much away, it outlines the need for us to recognize the difference between small business owners (who do function as workers) and big business owners (who are much less likely to work).
https://joewrote.substack.com/p/socialism-and-small-businesses
Thanks you. I shall read this.
Let me know what you think!
Helpful insights!
Most businesses fail, and almost none lead to "unlimited reward", whatever that is. If they did lead to unlimited reward, then it would be a reasonable assumption that they also created "unlimited" value for customers willingly buying that product or service in a reasonably free market, and therefore they added "unlimited" value to society. Hence it should be encouraged not derided. Along the way, this "unlimited" value creation machine probably purchased the labor of countless people and the services of countless suppliers and middlemen. Maybe this helps explain why people in modern economies make thirty to forty times what their ancestors did and live twice as long.
As for risky jobs, most jobs today are desk or service jobs or are extremely safe. If someone desires less risk, I suggest they choose these low or zero risk jobs. What was that current unemployment rate again?
Not everyone has the ability to choose a cushy desk job. As someone who worked a few low-risk desk jobs, I can attest getting them requires education and connections usually reserved for the upper classes.
Plus, there is risk in them, too. For example, part of my compensation was in company stock. But as I was let go before the 4-year vesting period, I received none of it. Essentially, I did not get paid for a lot of my work.
Nothing you are saying even closely matches reality. I made the point that jobs in offices and services are widespread and in enough demand that anyone can get them. Safe jobs like cashier, cook, waiter, plumber, receptionist, gardener, data input, customer service rep, and so on. I could add hundreds of jobs and link you to millions of job ads.
The point is that the vast majority of jobs are extremely safe and widely available with anyone able to use their hands or voice. You know this. I know this. So I am not sure why you are writing something different. Nor does anyone have to work for anyone else. Anyone with a tiny bit of initiative can work for themselves for considerable money (my gardener makes over $50 an hour and he was not born in US).
I don't think any response from me would be productive. Enjoy your day.
"Workers risk their lives". Yeah, that's one of the problem being alive. You risk death and dishonor on a regular basis. Owners get into car accidents too.
"Owners only risk being workers again". Right. Coz there's no difference between a worker with $10K-40K in his saving account and one with zero/a bankruptcy to his/her name...
There are potential objections to the "owners take all the risks" (say, business founders tend to be privileged enough to believe they can take a risk at all. I think it was a German study that showed that the most constant factor across entrepreneurs/business founders was getting an inheritance windfall allowing them to risk those first $50K or whatever) but it's clearly a weakness in Marxist arguments.
And that doesn't mean that the rewards are fairly distributed in our present day system. Just that your counter arguments to the risk point are pretty weak.
I disagree. First, workers are at INCREASED risk due to their work. It's possible for an owner to get killed in a car crash (obviously), but when your job is to drive around all day, that risk sky rockets.
Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the number of $10k-$40k in a bank account. The latest figures I saw had the median American with between $4k - $5k in their bank account, which leaves them unable to afford a medical emergency without going into debt.
If the average worker had $40k in their bank account, my critique would differ. But that's actually about 10x what the typical American has saved.
Work is risky to one's health? Surely owning stuff is risky to one's health too? Imagine having to jump into your car to go to all these meetings, all these overly rich business lunches you have to have, all that stress as you're trying to get the company off the ground...
The point about savings was trying to use the numbers you quoted as initial capital. If I am a worker and I've got $40K in the bank (or in house equity) then starting a business, losing it all and being again a worker would leave me in a worse position that if I had remained a worker all along. Sorry for not being clear.
"If I am a worker and I've got $40K in the bank (or in house equity) then starting a business, losing it all and being again a worker would leave me in a worse position that if I had remained a worker all along."
This is the essence of my argument! The person who "risked it all," would not be in a worse place than the person who stayed a worker. They would be in the same place of not enough capital to start a business, meaning they have to become a worker to survive.
It's kind of like a King telling his peasant soldiers before a battle, "I have more to risk than you. You're risking your lives, but I'm risking losing my crown!"