They need to START the factory, take the risk on borrowing the money to start the factory, take the risk to expand. The workers take ZERO risk, so they get zero reward beyond wages. Cooperative workers running a factory sounds like a great idea, they just need to get together and either buy the factory, or start one.
So this d$&k head thinks I’m going to give my inventions away. Do you think they would pay you 50% of their check. Nope. Just another government stooge living on my taxes
I actually had this conversation with a young college girl several months ago. I ran my own business. I told her to go start her own business and use the ideas your spilling and she how long you stay in business. These people have no idea what it takes to create a successful business.
@@donaldsink8115maybe money shouldnt be the focus of a business why because society needs thing people wont pay for roads mothers fire fighters cops unless you want everyone of them charging a fee grow up and think out side your greedy box
@@thewildcardpersonif money is not the focus of business then what's the use of doing business if there's no profit. Why waste time on doing something that doesn't benefit in any way. Utopia is not attainable however you try, someone has to sacrifice. And people who sacrifice reap the benefits. Simple as that
In Australia we have universal health care. You don’t have to be employed to afford to get media attention. And we are paid a living wage. We don’t pay tips to workers, the company pays the full wage and is not subsidised by the customer. Greed has engulfed the good ole U S of A.
I’m a self employed ‘sole trader’. Let me tell you this, the worst ship to sail is a ‘partnership’. Large factories cannot operate as a cooperative, the ‘human factor’ always messes up these utopian ideals. Our biggest hurdles against this idea is jealousy and greed.
There is NOTHING wrong with giving the executive a fair and generous incentive but also it's not difficult to include workers in a share of the company profits. Unfortunately the ledger is top heavy with the insatiable.
When I was a factory worker I can tell you the last thing on my mind was profit margins, cost of rent, cost of materials, or making sure my coworkers were doing a suitable amount of work so the company made enough money I was worried about working my hours and getting a paycheck so I could pay my bills.
I am only nearly 22 but I have worked in 4 different factories making different products in my local area. Aluminium vent ducting, wheat bread production gluton and dairy free production, and a large van to motorhome conversion workshop. The van conversion workshop was the only factory that actually made sense with the way they did things. The bread/food factories were the worst efficiency wise as they would throw away half of the product since it didn't look right or the ovens would break and burn everything. The vent ducting place had multiple lawsuits for lost limbs and deafness. The place would have scrap metal everywhere and there were no guards on the stationary drills or saws. When I went to college to do engineering I was very surprised on the level of health and safety I had to abide by in the college workshops compared to the real life workplace.
Right, but you elect a board of directors, separate from any union, whose job it is to direct the company for maximizing profit. But all decisions would need to be voted on by the employees
.. Or if you had a president that tariffed the hell out of foreign trade in favour of keeping jobs and companies at home... oh wait.. That rings a bell.
because all workers are mindless sheep who just crave for short term gain ? Why would they decide against their own interests ? Or, would you do that in that position ? I think it might acutally be the other way around: if workers owned the factory, they would directly benefit if it did good. So, there would be a very strong incentive to work hard, because all value the worker creates, he can keep (excluding taxes) or decide to reinvest. if That's not motivating I don't know what is.
@@JohnSmith-cn4cw Well, one successful example would be the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. That is a working workers-coop. Actually, I don't know of any attemps that failed. granted, I haven't looked for these and it certainly hasn't been tried all that often but maybe you could point out some that failed ? There must be some, after all must conventional busnisses fail in the long run as well.
@@re1010 Called human nature and your question shows your own bias. Employees have no risk when working at a job. They get compensated for their work plain and simple. These are not slaves, and they are free to leave at any time. Do not start with the Communist bull crap red herring that workers are trapped due to sociological requirement. This is the U.S. If you want to work, you can get a job. It is only in Communist hell holes are jobs restricted and where the true slavery to the state begins.
Patent Lawyers have entered the chat. Copyright Lawyers have entered the chat. Zoning Lawyers have entered the chat. Environmental Lawyers have entered the chat. CPSC Lawyers have entered the chat OSHA Lawyers have entered the chat. *Clears throat* "You were saying...?"
@@AaronCMounts *you said, "no one is stopping you". I debunked your claim. It's that simple.* So, who stops business owners (before they were business owners)? I just debunked your debunk.
That may be true but now they are a voting block and have a cult leader who is happy to dog whistle them. Collectively, that's right COLLECTIVELY they are about to bring America to its knees. THAT is because they don't share in the wealth of the RICHEST country in the world and know it.
That's how socialist think. They automatically think rainbows and butterflies will be swirling around them as they all work in harmony in their beautiful utopia. In reality, they will be eating eachother alive the next winter when their factory falls apart.
@@jaimefish173 They borrow the money, just like the fat cats do. They put together a business case and convince the bank. Of course, since they don't have anybody on the factory floor with a financial or management background, the bank is less likely to loan 50 million bucks to a bunch of people with no experience of doing anything other than their production jobs, the banks might be unhappy about going along with it.
@@regtaylor11631,000 to be worker owners would have to communicate together and unite first off. Then each would have to chip in $50,000 to get a $50,000,000 factory started. It would take at least a year to build and probably another year to set it up. Let's say machine shop, room for inventions, and the whole nine. 100 cnc and lathe machines, provides 100 machinists jobs, 200 assemblers, 100 sales and accounting, 50 inventors, 20 cleaners, 20 buyers of metals, 20 maintenance, etc. I think all 1,000 could have jobs filled in such an investment. Then the pay would have to be equal, with lots of money going back into the co-op. Might work.
If government invested in national wealth instead of reducing the size of government and expecting the market to run the economy , then there would be greater prosperity in the nation . The top one percent of wealthy companies and individuals should have their assets taxed and the law should make it illegal to avoid paying tax or seeking the means or advice to do so. Let’s also make it unlawful for shareholders to invest in public bodies and make it unlawful to earn more than a pensioner could . For those who were educated , housed and were supported by the nation should not be looking to tax the poor or middle class to make themselves rich . If we nurture private and state investment , promote SME’s , we should strike a balance between investment and research . Products should be designed to last twenty or more years and altering something by appearance and small technical enhancements are not by themselves desirable or needed . We should instead focus on systems over growth by percentage . It is because of the latter course we have polluted the planet and made life harder for everybody but the most wealthy .
my employees quit to start their own lawn mowing business. they all came and asked for jobs back cause their wages with me were more than their profits on their own.
@@misterdoctor9693 I didn't take them back. They just came begging. And though they weren't that good at mowing their struggle was getting customers with their appearance and crappy mower. And cause they realized no one paying them to pass out flyers now and no one buying flyers for them either. And though they may have got twice the pay on yards they did mow, it took 3 times as long with their cheap crap. They didn't have 50k to go get set up good.
@@misterdoctor9693 and your comment brings up a point I make all the time. Everyone says workers need paid more...... until they are the 1 paying and that worker butchers their yard. Now all a sudden the workers don't deserve pay or a minimum wage
@@SgtJoeSmith what you described is a lack of start up capital. It's why wealthier people tend to stay wealthy. And people without wealth can't just "pick themselves up by the bootstraps". That's not a mystery. That's the whole problem.
@@SgtJoeSmith I obviously have no idea the specifics of your small company but that is not a situation that occurs in giant companies. Most people are not arguing that everyone deserves the exact same wage but when there are giant companies where a few people at the top are making 1,000s of times as much as the main body of employees that is a problem.
@@HustleMuscleGhias - I will look for it - one time at that company we had a guy clean it up he spent a week going through stuff on the floor - $12,000 of stuff just throw around most people there did not care even though they owned it
But they often do pay, in the way of massive corporate tax subsidies and forgiveness. Which is actually worse, because the company is taking advantage of every taxpayer. Not just the ones they employ. It has cost the American taxpayers approx $1 million for every 23 jobs Tesla has "created." Not to mention it took almost 20 years before the company even turned a profit. The taxpayers should then own a percentage of the business, because the business wouldn't exist with them. No business can operate in a free market for two decades without turning a profit. Elon didn't earn $200 billion, the taxpayers handed it to him. But now he doesn't want to pay taxes, engages in massive tax evasion scams, and he has spent millions to lobby against other companies receiving the exact same taxpayer funded benefits he got. Hmmmm. Oh yeah, Space X & Starlink, both mostly funded with taxpayer dollars, and who greatly benefit from hundreds of billions in taxpayer funded research and development. Still doesn't want to pay taxes. Hmmmm.
If workers took over the factories would they work like they owned the factory? Would they make sure the bottom line remained the bottom line? Would they fire non-productive workers? Would they raise the skill level of the workforce?
Eventually some would be doing more work then others but getting each the sam results at the end. Pilgrams tried this in their beginning in the new world. It didnt worl. Less started doing the work, but all kept eating untell William Bradford governor. Self interest instead of communism tactics. Which is what this guy would get to. First socialism then once factories crash government now takes completely over to communism. Whilliam Bradford said self investment for each individual work their own lands rais their own supplies for the harsh ass winters. If not, who knows because theyrd probably died, all starving, & Americas founders may have been different america being Already a Christian land Harverd & so many more great institutions back then the later pilgrams built & created because of mans good honesty & hard work knows to help the weeker because thats what Jesus wants, but self interests comes first cause more you do richer you get more good you can do, & that is America. Today we have huge institutions mainly government runni ng non profits, in the insurance buisness, student loans, retirments, & our dollar weeker & weeker, & today government is eating us all alive cause of its huge machine stomping on ideas, achievements, crashing our economy, killing our dollar, worth bout 20 cents today if that. Need to get back to old William Bradford's idea. He new human nature & how important self interest is. Like you wanna a job done right, gotta do it yourself, self interest, you know youll do it right to get paid right & their buisness again...
The workers should take over the factory. Massive pay rises for all, fire the executives, cut management to a skeleton crew, remove company cars, provide top insurance benefits for all and cut working hours. Next, reduce costs by buying in cheaper materials and reduce the amount of consumables used and cut the advertising budget. Simple! What could possibly go wrong?
What factories, idiot? We don’t have any factories here anymore, they all went to China to exploit slave labor over there. Socialism means workers own and control the means of production. It’s a good idea.
They *have* done it, with the steel industry among other places. They run for a few years, then fail just as they were failing before they bought their plant when the company executives were going to close it. Ugly fact is that these worker cooperatives yield results too similar to corporate greed, after a brief period when they were subsidized by the retirement plans of the workers and sometimes the state government.
tell the 400 workers to all get a million dollar loan and chip in for a $400 million dollar factory and split the money equally regardless the skill level of job they do or hours they work.
This is reminiscent of the serfs in Tsarist Russia having to compensate the landed aristocracy with a lifetime of servitude in exchange for "liberty." Or the British government having to compensate slave owners for the abolition of slavery, only repaying the debt in recent years. Poverty is as much a lifestyle choice as serfdom or slavery, and systemic exploitation is the primary inhibitor of social mobility
@SgtJoeSmith I mean, you kinda recognise the exploitation inherent in wage labour, but workers denied the full value of their labour shouldn't really be confused with chattle slaves. Regardless, i thought it was unrealistic to imagine workers having enough surplus, admist a profit driven cost of living crisis, to purchase liberty. The system is designed to keep the poor working and the rich idle. As in feudalism, there exist many obsticles to prevent social mobility and further increase the divide between the wealthy 10% and the other 90%
They would all go broke in a few months. People, as they naturally do, will start fighting with one another. Sooner or later the company will go broke and they'll be outta work.
Yup, plus try to get 400 people come together and come to any decision. If you give workers Option A or Option B, you are limiting any other option that could work better.
So let me get this straight. You want someone, to create a business or factory. You want them to pay for the incorporation fees, the taxes, the insurance, the lease or mortgage on the facility, hire a staff, establish the management, secure contracts, pay for the equipment and the products and take on the entire liability of the company on their shoulders and then you want them to hand over all the profits to some people who can push a button or pull a lever on the production line? What person in their right mind is going to go through all of the trouble to create a business and then just hand it off to their employees? That's just not feasible.
We want the government to assist the workers with capital to buy the business from the owners. Take mom and pop business for example. There now 70 years old and have 80 employees. The owners kids don't want to take over the company as it's not interested. So the old owners have one option. Have a big business buy them out. All government needs to do when the owner want to sell is give workers the capital to buy the owners out. You can do this with bankruptcy or when companies need a bail out.
@@LeftWingNationalistWhere would the government get that money? You’ve eliminated the rich by socializing the means of production. Where are they going to get the talented engineers who just found a better life in Dubai where they’re being paid what they are worth? Socialism always fails because it doesn’t reward risks.
@ryanb55 if the government can hand out subsidies to private corporations it can hand out subsidies to help workers take.over a business. If you want to argue I've got no interests in that. I'm very pro worker cooperative.
@DestroyTheEstablishment Using the government at taxpayers' expense is definitely not the answer. Your example is fine, and I get it, but if the workers want to buy the establishment when it goes up for sale, then let them do it. Why does the government have to step in and use other people's money? I've seen plenty of "mom and pop" businesses where a few of the workers put up their own capital in order to secure a loan and buy the business from the original owners...that's completely possible to do on your own without any assistance from the government. It's just not feasible. I don't think we should bail out corporations either, and I also don't think that student loans should be immune from bankruptcy.
Spoken like a parochial who has never traveled or been educated. No capitalists in Scandinavia, huh? In America, capitalist firms build airports and roads paid for by taxpayers. You think capitalists don't like money?
Actually you can it just happens at the end. You can take the capital out of capitalism and call it candy land. But in reality people capitalize on power and access to resources any way they can. If you take the capital away. Humans will capitalize whatever else they can That's why socialism always collapses in corruption and suffering.
The entire western world outside America is pretty damn socialist and we have plenty of capitalism too. No country is entirely socialist or capitalist - a wholly socialist country is a totalitarian dystopia (N.Korea is closest but still has shreds of capitalism in it's market economy), an entirely capitalist one would be mayhem and anarchy with no public order or safety. Too much of either is a problem. One area I think the US could do with a little more socialism is by having a mental health service and opening psychiatric facilities again. I encountered insane people everywhere the last time I was over, there were people out of their minds walking in traffic and generally being dangerous and unpredictable. Having people like that loose en-mass with guns available is a bit too close to the anarchy side of the equation.
If the products they produce are too expensive compared to overseas products, the factory closes, the workers lose their jobs. Germany is facing this dilemma now.
yeah, no. Germany has no workers Coops. and the solution is clear, don't import stuff that hurts your local economy. That's why socialists are generally more protectionist.
This is because unregulated trade allows the import of cheap goods without regard to the safety, quality, or working conditions associated with the products. A simple law requiring that all goods being imported meet the same quality and safety standards as domestic goods immediately reveals the reality that cheap goods are only cheap because of exploitation.
@@matthewchristovich So you advocate penalising efficient operations over inefficient operations.... this can be including or excluding geography. You believe that third world countries should not be allowed to compete for work with first world countries without their efforts being taxed by the recipient countries government? I believe you meant to say that buyers should be selective, and ensure that the conditions of the workforce are respected and that there is trickledown? For this reason i dont drive electric vehicles as i believe workers are being enslaved and abused to produce raw materials for batteries.... gets complicated doesnt it? No problem lets have bigger government and that will take care of it all!! Maybe you dont trust third world governments to protect the safety of their citizens? If so thats a very racist and supremacist view to take of the world...... You probably hate the west and western values and working conditions?
@@davidabbott4085 so, first, put down the Kool-aid before you drown. Second, what I said was: the economic notion of "efficiency" is an oversimplified equation designed to benefit industrial capitalists by not considering the full factors of production including quality of life of the workers and the societal impact of production. Capitalists have for generations worked diligently to ensure that the fewest numbers of items get included on the top line of their balance sheet and have sponsored an entire philosophy that calls that "efficient" and people, like you, buy it. The myth of buyer choice is also a capitalist fabrication because anyone who can successfully remove items from the balance sheet has a competitive advantage borne from disregarding those other factors. The only counter-balance to this is the collective power of the people to rebalance the equation to include important societal concerns through intelligent regulation and appropriate taxation. In short, you don't get to get rich by making others pay for your gains.
No, what he's NOT going to say out loud is that a proletarian revolution must occur for for communism to come about. This guy is an old Marxist, fed on the same fairy tales his grandparents were pushing in the 1930s.
the system gives you the illusion that everybody can make it. they can't. the tools to make a business sucessful is rarely given to lower class people.
@@mzyil I didn't say everybody could make it, and I don't think capitalism has ever pretended that's the case. A hell of a lot more make it than have ever done in any other system though.
Not against the law, but the bank isn't going to lend them the money to compete against their pet monopoly; the media will defame you, politicians will set up laws that only impact you and not your competition; the other businesses who you try to sell those finished parts to will snub your business, and the businesses you try to buy raw materials from will also snub you.
They can’t build one, the money would vanish and there would still be nothing but an empty lot. They can take one over, which can limp along and soon die, at which point they will still blame capitalism or some other boogeyman for their personal failures. Workers are less competent and more corrupt than the worst CEOs and executives, they just can’t do as much harm because they’re rarely in charge of anything too important.
@@thomasaitken1345 Most self employed have been employees. You live in strange world where you think business owners have a special kind of genes? Evidence is that co-op organisations are very efficient. Perhaps in some American companies people are kept in boxes so no one knows how the company works and illiteracy is a rule. I do remember a US company a few years ago complaining that it was difficult to recruit people without a drug problem even if they otherwise took anybody regardless of the job. Perhaps there is something wrong with Americans not the co-op system?
The rich only exist presently at the acquiescence of the 99%! Revolution is coming that is inevitable! The center cannot hold. This country will not remain intact, and the federal government is presently being irrelevant to the common people.
@@DM-ur8vc You don't understand what I mean by practically free, do you genuinely belive it is possible for all the workers in factories to decide to create their own factories and run their own property? The existence of your idea of is predicated on the existence and maintainance of an underclass. This is also failing to mention the myriad of ways that those who typically are the working class are trained into self-enforcing their status as a worker and a member of the underclass, via systems put in place by the ruling asset class. You're being purposefully obtuse or generally stupid, hopefully the latter.
@@johnburns4017 You realize this company needed a fascist regime to destroy it's competition to survive, right? And it was bankrolled by the catholic church.
@@tonybloomfield5635 Nothing is stopping them. But legislation can encourage co-ops. Co-ops still operate in the free market,. They are just companies. Many companies went under that could have been saved by going to a co-op. Also co-ops can and have failed because of the wrong product or service, selling a product or service at the wrong time, etc. They are companies like any other.
From whom? The banks who are invested in propping up the Capitalist system and filled with people ideologically opposed to workers doing well for themselves and cutting out the parasites? Fat chance.
@@Lazyguy22 Wow, the media really did a job on you. This happens literally every day in America. The bank want to collect interest payments, that's all they care about.
Ummm there IS something. It's called Riot Police and Police Special Ops teams. And make no mistake: given British history where worker rebellions were mercilessly put down with gunfire, it's almost suicide to attempt that.
They do. workforce buyouts are not unusual but accessing capital to start off is hard as they usually have to pay off the debt accumulated by the previous management.
You can go and start your own co-op factory. I dare you to try. Maybe it's not impossible but it's damn near it. Even a single lazy, greedy, conniving, or arrogant member could send the whole operation on its underside. There's a reason why even "co-op" communities like natibe tribes and communes don't have that many people. Having such a factory would mean that every member would have to work as much as they pitch in. In other words, the more resources you put into the project means the more time and resources expected from you. In a normal business structure, the lowest workers only put work into the company and get paid in return. If the company goes sideways they only lose their job and don't get the debt the shareholders have to pay off.
It's certainly not free. The government spends 25% of GDP. "free" economies have the government allocating far less of the capital. Lots of this capital gets funnelled into the coffers of the affluent politically connected class. The solution to crony capitalism is not another contrived power structure that is easily corruptible. It's a free market.
Point, but a good Captain doesn't reward himself while his workers suffer, he rolls up his sleeves and pitches in. His ass is just as trim and slim as his men. Somewhere along the line the execs forgot how to be good captains
This communist speaking on the assumption that the workers are more moral and responsible than their bosses is absurd. That is why communism is a failure at every turn, people are people no matter what the delusional ones who believe in collectivism are living in fantasy world
also apparently he's never been in a union.. in any reputable union, you vote for actions, including who gets paid what. Have there been unions where people siphoned cash for personal gain? Absolutely. Do unions at large do this? No, not even close. and if you believe that propaganda, then you're not being smart or analytical, you're literally doing the bidding of people who are in completely different class than you are (and who are not working in your interest).
If it's that simple Why aren't factory workers collectively buying their own factory and running it. Cuz no one is willing to take the risk. Risk takers DESERVE the 25million.
Collective associations of workers can’t agree to do anything but less, and less, until no one has a job left. Businesses are built by high energy highly motivated risk takers, NOT your average employee.
@@MrDportjoe Nasty personal attacks are the first line of defense of the true believers, and the last bastion of the utterly contemptuous. You keep dreaming your dreams of a socialist paradise. Never has worked, never will.
@@matthewsmith5374 ' @matthewsmith5374 4 hours ago Happens all the time, they’re called co-ops.' Then there's no need for any political action, is there, including exempting unions from the ordinary criminal laws against trespass and assault.
@@matthewsmith5374one thing about co-ops i know of they still have people voted in usually to make decisions kinda like how a corporation is run except the stock holders are the workers themselves they can't just decide to make changes like how much they get paid they have to elect a guy to make that decision then there are farmer co-ops where farmers own a business they buy/sale to bit the workers dont have a controling share the farmers keep atleast 51%
There's a reason workers don't run factories. If it weren't for those executives and owners who risk their capital, workers wouldn't have jobs. Case closed.
It's possible to have an enterprise without a boss (without centralizing power at the top). Yet, have you ever saw an enterprise without workers? Never. That right there tells you which one depends on the other.
@@nicolasm400 Have you ever seen an enterprise without the necessary equipment to run the enterprise? Never. Where does that equipment come from? Capital. Who provides that capital? The owners of the enterprise. That right there tells you which one depends on the other. The point here is if it's sooooo easy and the workers can do it all themselves, then they should try. See if they can put together enough capital between them in equal amounts to buy the equipment necessary to run it. They need to start it all themselves from scratch. If it was as simple as you think (and this guy thinks) you'd see a lot more of it going on in the real world. Think of how Apple got started. Amazon. Microsoft. Tesla. Etc. Some of the biggest companies in the world that employ thousands of people earning good money. They didn't start out with hundreds of people working and deciding things. Do you think you are going to get 100, 1000 or 10s of thousands of people together putting up capital to start businesses like these? Oh and who is going to make the decisions? Are you going to put it to a vote between 1,000 people and go with that? How about 30,000? 80,000? 120k? Good luck with that.
That’s a myth. Those executives and owners aren’t risking anything. After sending the jobs overseas get walk away with a $10 million dollar bonus. If the company goes bankrupt they still get their millions.
@@davidhutchison3952 and that's why they should enter & participate in the enterprise just like everyone else (one person = one vote) instead of having special privileges and capturing the power and creation of value for themselves
Why should he not be angry? I'm Norwegian and we're a small country, but by far the biggest owner of USA. Right now, Norwegian corporations are receiving billions of tax dollars from America for our companies to exploit cheap American labour, while Americans pay healthcare insurance to Norway. It's absolutely wonderful for us, but it's extremely unfair to the Americans. As long as America just bites the pillow, the suffering of the Ameircan people will grow.
Those workers just voted themselves redundant as they Labour costs are to high and the cheap imports from the CCP occupied China meant nobody wanted to buy their overpriced goods.
@@regtaylor1163that approach would work but then China would do the same for American products and severely impact exports. I do agree though that something needs to be done to provide a more comfortable and satisfying standard of living for the working class.
@@chalkyloverAmerica doesn’t really have to worry about the global market, most things it can produce itself and anything it can’t it can just overthrow governments and take their resources.
@@tonalambiguity3345 American goods are already more expensive than Chinese knockoffs. The effect would be in our stores, price comparison shoppers would be more drawn to American cars, appliances, TVs, electronics. We could make a dent in the goods produced by slave and child labor in the orient.
@@msryynhbgnk5589 and guess what, no one else is going to vote for that, because that affects everyone else. And in this theoretical system, the workers have a equal say. Especially since a unstainable raise is going to be noticed.
you do realize this Dr Richard Fox. He's a Marxist. He makes sense at the beginning when hes just talking basic economic then he talks about how to fix economic problems then the Marxism kicks in
@@Fabermain I did read it, but unlike you I understood it. You don't need one group, (pigs or any other), "to be in charge" after we liberate ourselves. Orwell was a libertarian Communist, or Anarcho-Communist if you like, therefore he didn't believe in ralations of authority. You need to understand what you read.
It has been shown that a democracy which brings multiple point of views and promotes debate & discussion has statistically more chances of bringing smart decisions than an oligarchy, where perspective is limited and where debate tends to be suppressed or simply not necessary.
@@allenestes5265 If we already understand that royalty or dictatorship is chaotic and unefficient for our governments, please tell me what makes it so different for our enterprises?
Those jobs wouldve never existed because those 400 factory workers never pooled their money to start that factory. If you want a worker co-op then start one. Dont try to take what someone else has created.
It takes money. Who has it? Certainly not the people who do the work. The Bolshevik revolution failed for two reasons: (1) People are shiite, selfish, with no sense of community, (2) Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin -- these guys were theoreticians. No one had ever attempted what they wanted to do, and they certainly didn't know how to do it. It could be argued that NOW is the time to try it again -- the dictatorship of the worker. At least this time they know what does NOT work. I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly. The greedy, avaricious corporate board members and CEOs have replicated the Tsatist model of dysfunction, and have squeezed the system to another collapse point. If the now-savvy workers of the world capture power and adopt a tweaked, Fox-friendly name, maybe Communalists, where will the blame lie?
@@OslerWannabeThe workers need to save up, and put their money into a fund, once the fund reaches a good amount of money, it will be easier to get a bank loan. As far as I am concerned, saying that workers have no money is just an excuse, if 1000 workers each put $50 aside each month they would have 600000 USD in a year, which is plenty to start a small production, perhaps not reach full employment right away but at least get the ball rolling, and that is even without considering what loans they would be able to get.
The owners and shareholders are already doing that. I think the point would be to offer fair wages to the employees. Not just allowing every single penny of "profit" to go to one person or group of people. This thinking is killing the middle-class. There's going to be no one left to buy their products. It's too much reminiscent of the board game "Monopoly".
The executives started the company so they are invited to the profits and reinvesting it into the company. Perhaps giving the workers raises if they can
@@hurch1915 If you actually did this, the workers would immediately realize they could ship the factory to China and not have to work in the factory all day. According to the figures the guy uses in the video, at least 25 million in profit is going to the executives after all the workers and other expenses are paid. If the workers suddenly owned the factory, they would realize they could make 62.5k each per year just by being part owner, without having to work in a factory all day, even by keeping it in America or wherever. And they would realize they could make even more by shipping it overseas, without having to work in a factory all day. Either way, most of the workers aren't going to want to be the workers any more.
Factories do not get built by collectives. It always takes one person and a bunch of capital to risk their money for a dream. The person who risks it all gets the highest rewards. The workers can always quit and go start their own company and then be toldt they are evil by their workers for making more than them.
Does the person starting the company have to pay their employees slave wages? Is the one and only purpose of the company to make the most money for it's owner even if it means the employees basically starve? I guess so.
Do you have an example where workers are being paid slave wages. I have often found that workers are paid what is fair for their skills and education. @@hurch1915
No, their jobs would go away. Because none of these people know how to run the business side of the operation. And if you don't know how to run the business side the factory will be mismanaged and close.
This sounds great but then what happens when a Chinese factory opens up with cheap labor and buyers decide to buy from there? It doesn't matter that you decided to still run the factory, because you're no longer competing with the Chinese factory, and you'll have to shut down due to the fact you're making no money. These things aren't trivial.
Co-cops are seldom unionized BECAUSE organizing drives only succeed when bad management leads to anger, injury and or death see Memphis Sanitation Workers strike 1968 Many mine organized after major disasters as well. The IBEW was, in large part founded on keeping the workers safe. This also applies to longshore and warehouse work, pulp and paper mills, steel mills and railroads.
@@christians1131 Easy, do as 99.9999% of all other company owners; borrow money, take loan on your house, live on more or less nothing to make the company float. But you dont want to do that, am I right? You, like all socialists, are just lazy and will NEVER take the extreme risks. You just want to take the profits of others risks. Same as always.
I worked for an oil company in the 80s, the union could literally not run a small pub for the workers, without missing money and fraud, they got sued by the bar workers, they were shut down multiple time by liquor inspectors, then they tried to tell a very successful company how to run its business.
I can give you opposite examples where unions have worked with management to deliver substantial efficiencies because workers can see where waste is and when management are acting counter productively.
I've worked at multiple tech start-ups and each one is usually founded by one or two guys. Almost all workers would rather work 9-5 and get their paycheck instead of investing all their time and money back into the company.
I don’t understand why a group of factory workers don’t get together, start a company, build their own factory, buy their own tools, make their own product, get their own product distribution, ship their own product, market their own product, sell their own product, and hire more workers to help their own business grow. Why doesn’t this happen?
Yes! They'd take the 25million divide it amongst themselves, and then move the production to China, and take the income from sales rights. And then they'd start a new company ...
if they were owners. they would have to pay for the products that were outsourced, ensure that they were of sufficient quality, then market and sell them. Not passive at all.
One things for sure, if the workers formed a cooperative and were responsible for the running and expansion of a business they wouldn't vote to go on strike for more pay and less hours.
Yes they would. Some, if not most,would vote for more pay, less hours, less work in those hours. Those who had a more responsible head would try to veto it. Then you get those who want it striking, or just voting them out, getting rid of those more business minded, because they act to much like the former fat cats. Just look at what happened in Russia after the revolution. They got rid of the business owners, and the managers, the ppl who could and did run the businesses. Put in those from the lower levels to run the places. Those that did bad ran the businesses to the ground, those that did good and help the businesses profit were looked down on, because to run a business profitable( and not in the ‘putting money in their own pockets’ way, just in the ‘business does well’ way) knew that you needed to set rules, quotas, demand workers to actually do work.
I'd say Free Trade Agreements have more to answer for than Unions. The better question would be for companies to ask why their workforce felt the need to get unionized in the first place.
@@Tqoratsos666 They unionized because socialist vampires told them all that they'd be given more money if they did, and then they all lost their jobs and the socialists ran away.
@@robertmartin6800 you're not seeing the bigger picture. People wouldn't be able to be sucked into the socialist vampires, as you rightly call them, if companies didn't offshore the jobs. Capitalistic ideals are around competition and it's impossible to compete with countries that pay their workers slave wages. The issue lies with the politicians that made free trade agreements with countries that have much lower wages and regulations. Those politicians would have been lobbied by special interest groups that work on behalf of the billionaire class to make those agreements. So unfortunately, even though I hate communism and socialism, this late stage global crony capitalism is doing nothing for the people in the western world. We've been sold a lie.
Bingo. Read up on Deng Xiaoping who is considered the "Architect of Modern China." He became the leader of China a couple years after Mao died and implemented far-reaching capitalistic economic reforms that greatly improved the economy and brought order back to China and led China to what it is today.
In the late 80's,Workers in Wentzville, Mo, voted, through collective bargaining, to give the workforce a raise that closed the plant. The knew it would, was well informed that it would close the plant. They knowingly voted themselves out of a job.
They didn’t know. They probably thought whoever was telling them was bluffing. The thing I hate about unions is They NEVER tell workers to work harder.
i tried this. everyone fought and got greedy but no one made money cause they were too busy fighting. then when something broke no one wanted to stay late to fix it or demanded extra pay. like there is no extra pay. you already got the profits. they all quit to work for walmart or mcdonalds so they would get paid for every hour there.
I owned a factory and the workers demanded more pay. I told them if they fund the next project they could keep all the profits as their pay. They asked what if there is no profit, I answered no profit no pay. They said that’s not fair. I said now you know how I feel.
So your company didn't have capital? It was all funded from your personal finances? If not then how would it be fair and comparable to demand the workers to use their personal finances to support the company? Instead of increasing their wage you could have paid them with shares in the company. Then their efforts in making the company profit would directly benefit them and they'd have more say in how profits are spent improving the factory to make it more efficient and profitable.
All the workers need to start their own company/business is money and either a product or a service. But then you have to know how to attract buyers/customers. That's where the executives come in.
He's also wrong about outsourcing jobs to other places. Over the last 20 years, of the top 500 businesses in the US those that refused to outsource have had a lower net increase in American Jobs than those that do outsource. Sounds weird, but it's true. Need to cut the budget by 10% or the whole division gets shut down? Outsourcing 10 jobs is a lot better than 50 people getting laid-off. Want an expansion, but can't quite make the money cover it? Outsource a few jobs. Employing 10 more people is better than NOT employing the 20 you didn't have the budget for.
If workers had the motivation, drive, intellect, and business acumen to run a company, then they wouldn't be workers, they'd be owners and they'd do the exact same types of things that owners do now.
Guy, many many workers are motivated, driven, smart, and even have acumen. But the thing is that owning a company is a risky proposition, most companies even many run by motivated, driven, smart, well trained people fail. Look at NeXT, Steve Jobs ran that and it failed. And Steve Jobs is like one of most successful company owners of all time. My wife owns her own small business, she takes a lot more risk, if her business goes under, it's a huge blow for her. If my company goes under, I collect my last paycheck and I might be be at work someplace else on Monday. Sure, I don't have the same ceiling, I'll never potentially make as much, but I also don't have the same risk. The reason I don't take the risk isn't because I'm incapable, lacking drive, dumb, or lacking understanding of business. I've chosen a path that has lower potential payout, but less risk. It's a choice, and in my case probably a smart one.
@@davidpeters6743 I'm retired from a life of corporate employment. Like you, I did not have the desire to run my own company because I preferred the challenge of working on high tech aerospace products. There is no way I could make a startup company and get the funding needed to get into such a business. Actually, it's not impossible, but it would require that I be pretty much like Elon Musk and even though I'm bright, I hold no delusions of being that bright.
Simon Thompson CEO of Royal Mail got a 700,000 pounds pay off when he left claiming the company was broke and the CWU bought into this and the postal workers got a terrible deal 😢
As a former RM worker and Senior CWU Rep I can confirm that both the RM hierarchy and the CWU top brass are all corrupt and working together. the CWU sent their bully boys down to my office once BCS I set up a website and invited all the union members at our sorting office to anonymously complete questionnaires and write their thoughts on both the Union and the RM. There were more than a few expletives being thrown around that night when the CWU descended on me, I threw them out of the office and told them I would expose them all bunch of scum
And RM is infrastructure built by tax funds and stamps I'm guessing!? Selling/looting of this type of tax funded infrastructure is probably the most profitable crime in World history.
yeah obviously, because profit is a capitalist concept. They would be no need for profit as there are no shareholders. In such a system all "profits" would be reinvested or payed out to the workers.
The new economic system of socialism would not need to Infinitly generate profit. Rather improving production due to new technologies and getting rid off the capitalist middle man. Added value due to production can than be used to finance other sectors like education, healthcare and other sectors that might be cost intensive in the short to middle term but will reap great benifits to society in the long Term. There simply wouldnt be a need for profits in the future society.
@@bf2229 Long term will be most defined by AI. Sam Altman's paper on "Moore's Law for Everything" speaks of the downward spiral of costs for everything that is our future. I follow the progress of AI through several of the best YT channels and I would estimate that we are somewhere between 5 and 10 years from the world being completely changed as conservative estimates looking at the rate of progress currently. All human effort won't be gone by then for goods and services, but the message will be clear: it's headed OUT and only a matter of time.
If you could make more money by moving to China, then those 400 workers would absolutely vote to move the factory. They make more money, don't have to pay as many taxes AND somebody else has to do the work for them? It's no different than what any company does by moving. As long as the workers retain ownership and get a share of the profits, they would absolutely outsource if it meant generating MORE profit.
They tried that... it was called the Soviet Union. Who'd that work out. Did the workers put up millions to start that business? No, they just want.. and want... and want!
There are legit criticisms of what this guy is saying, but yours isn't one of them. There were a few people in the Soviet Union who favoured worker's control, they were crushed in about 1921 and most of them were shot either then or in the 1930's.
@@theamericanopry They do, because it's a huge risk and it's key to our economy. You seem to ignore things like down payments and credit from suppliers and that given to customers.
@@tomj528 I can't even understand what you are saying, " ...and that given to the customers." What exactly. Tesla only shows a profit because of Federal subsidies and carbon credits. I understand the importance of pushing technology, but don't act like the boy genius isn't sucking from the government tit, while screwing workers and the environment.
@@theamericanopry When a "factory" sends their product(s) out to their "customer" IE: a wholesaler or directly to stores they send a bill with a 30-90 term typically. They're extending short term credit to their "customers". Government incentivizes behaviors and while we can debate the efficacy and morality of doing so til the cows come home, realistically it's beyond our control or influence. They want a shift to electric vehicles...vehicles the majority don't want, the batteries are too resource heavy and that can't be supported by the electrical grid. At the same time they curtailed domestic oil exploration/production, wasted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and further diluted our currency which will lose our dollar's status as the World's Reserve Currency as part of this "genius" plan. Elon Musk has stepped in to create jobs, advance the technology and keep us ahead of the Chinese while using the government's incentives to do so...hate the game, not the player.
@@theamericanopry With Tesla it's Federal Government loans that pay for the factories as for Tesla in over 20 years in business, Tesla has only ever made a profit once.
You're right. The factories wouldn't have been moved elsewhere. They'd just stop recieving business because it's too expensive for other companies to pay for that factory's services.
@@genghiscarnage4015 I think it was originally a fair co operative. But it appears things have changed in recent years, the tories have got their claws into it
@@trollbane66 That's not solidarity, and I live in the UK. There were some workers here in London from Chile, and the company they worked at was basically crap. They were being exploited, no health and safety procedures, NO proper safety equipment, PPE, low wages, no other benefits, proper payed holidays etc etc. So one day they had enough and contacted a new union here in the UK called United Voices of The world, they gave them good advice. Then they stopped work and told their supervisor their demands, the supervisor attacked one of them. So they told him we are going home now, no more work until our demands are met in full. A manager came and tried to calm them down, he got in his phone and said I will order some ppe, safety equipment. They said that's not good enough, we we won't be back to work until you meet oir demands in full. After 2 or 3 weeks the company gave in and hace them everything they wanted. So you see solidarity does work. And these were supposed to be cheap Labor from Chile on visas most likely
@@fredatlas4396 Same thing happens in US They send buses to the border to pick them up. Then put them up in mobile homes, sometimes 10 to a 2 bedroom trailer. Then they charge them rent and utilities.
If you want workers to run the factories, they better start building and financing the factories themselves. A business owner isn't paid for labour, they're paid for coordinating everything from procurement to production to sale.
You know that most people at the top build nothing right? The investor class simply move money around and collect pay from other people's work whilst using every tax loophole possible to give nothing back to society.
You mean. The CEO initially puts at risk all of his wealth and future hood to pursue the establishment of a business. He takes all the risk and if he does it successfully he then gets to hire people who have put no risk or money into that company to work for him under contract. I don’t see why the workers should own the means of production. They don’t put any risk or wealth into the company, they are simply hired and then paid an agreed amount. Unlike a business owner a Worker doesn’t lose everything if that business faulter, instead they can move onto another place of work relatively easily.
Yes there are forces stopping them, mostly their lack of money. Society favors the rich, lying about workers being lazy just does the riches work for them.
You know who is actually getting paid for other people's work? The investor class. They make money by already having money. You think they earned the original money by hard work? It's always the same: Fraud, exploitation and theft.
@@DisgruntledPeasant I couldn't agree more. Just look at the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gettys, etc. It was robber barons that built this country, not to do anything good for society or the workers but to enrich themselves.
I would love to see a 400 person board meeting with everyone fighting about whether to put money into a contingency fund or pay it to themselves. See how that cluster fuck works out
@@Jaffjv and who puts up the money? Is it exactly equal or do some invest more than others for a greater percentage of ownership? How is that different than shareholders that just work there? And do you think that could work in a 20,000 person company? Is there a heirarchy of decision makers? And what do you do when stupid people with no business acumen are in decision making roles just because they are included in ownership.
@@garym.5931 bonds, business loans, etc. Like most companies, owners typically don’t want to invest their own money if they have other ways to raise capital. And yes, to in large co-ops of course there are hierarchies of decisions just like any organization. The shareholders (people who work in the company) will vote for someone qualified to make the day to day decisions like any board, and if they don’t perform well they can be replaced. You are under the impression that leadership in a co-op is picked completely randomly, regardless of business acumen
they wouldnt fight. they all agree to pay themselves higher wages. then when a $1 million machine breaks and they have to stop production and no money to fix or replace it and no more money coming in they well start robbing and shooting each other trying to get paid for their hours by some one else there.
These companies work, do you think they all spend time on a production line and then spend hours per day doing management. They still have skilled managers.
Richard Wolf, I actually sat next to him at a bar once and got into a similar argument about how I take advantage of my four construction employees, you’re right about him being a nitwit
@@trapiconti4001 I mean, not with that attitude. The workers are the ones who built the company, the ones who actually create value. What do they need the owners for? Why shouldn't the owners be cut out of the loop? Why should the workers subject themselves to the rules and exploitation of the owner?
@@ErikratKhandnalie Nothing is stopping you from saving your money, opening an llc and starting your own company. Then you can learn about taxes, make sure you’re following local and federal laws and be responsible financially if the company fails or is sued. Nobody is exploiting workers, go get another job if you don’t like it. Did you really just ask “why the owners shouldn’t be cut out of the loop?” Because that is theft. How about we cut you out the loop and give your phone back to the people who built it, there the ones who created the value didn’t they? The entitlement in your Marxist response is truly disgusting
They need to START the factory, take the risk on borrowing the money to start the factory, take the risk to expand. The workers take ZERO risk, so they get zero reward beyond wages. Cooperative workers running a factory sounds like a great idea, they just need to get together and either buy the factory, or start one.
So this d$&k head thinks I’m going to give my inventions away. Do you think they would pay you 50% of their check. Nope. Just another government stooge living on my taxes
That’s the inconvenient part that they always leave out.
I actually had this conversation with a young college girl several months ago. I ran my own business. I told her to go start her own business and use the ideas your spilling and she how long you stay in business. These people have no idea what it takes to create a successful business.
@@donaldsink8115maybe money shouldnt be the focus of a business why because society needs thing people wont pay for roads mothers fire fighters cops unless you want everyone of them charging a fee grow up and think out side your greedy box
@@thewildcardpersonif money is not the focus of business then what's the use of doing business if there's no profit. Why waste time on doing something that doesn't benefit in any way. Utopia is not attainable however you try, someone has to sacrifice. And people who sacrifice reap the benefits. Simple as that
The workers would immediately demand more diversity and health care for affirming care.
In Australia we have universal health care. You don’t have to be employed to afford to get media attention. And we are paid a living wage. We don’t pay tips to workers, the company pays the full wage and is not subsidised by the customer. Greed has engulfed the good ole U S of A.
@@retrobilly1986ah yes Australia one of those global superpowers.......
Go f*** a kangaroo
You have never been within 50 miles of a factory if you think that's the case.
I’m a self employed ‘sole trader’. Let me tell you this, the worst ship to sail is a ‘partnership’. Large factories cannot operate as a cooperative, the ‘human factor’ always messes up these utopian ideals. Our biggest hurdles against this idea is jealousy and greed.
There is NOTHING wrong with giving the executive a fair and generous incentive but also it's not difficult to include workers in a share of the company profits. Unfortunately the ledger is top heavy with the insatiable.
The largest private employer in the UK is the John Lewis Partnership. A *co-op.*
@johnburns4017 True. How’s that going? 🤔
@@michael1345 many ceo's are required to own a bunch of company stock just to get the job and others are founders. its called skin in the game.
@@johnburns4017
Did, it begin as a co-op?
Did it grow in a free market purely as a co-op?
When I was a factory worker I can tell you the last thing on my mind was profit margins, cost of rent, cost of materials, or making sure my coworkers were doing a suitable amount of work so the company made enough money I was worried about working my hours and getting a paycheck so I could pay my bills.
I am only nearly 22 but I have worked in 4 different factories making different products in my local area. Aluminium vent ducting, wheat bread production gluton and dairy free production, and a large van to motorhome conversion workshop.
The van conversion workshop was the only factory that actually made sense with the way they did things.
The bread/food factories were the worst efficiency wise as they would throw away half of the product since it didn't look right or the ovens would break and burn everything.
The vent ducting place had multiple lawsuits for lost limbs and deafness. The place would have scrap metal everywhere and there were no guards on the stationary drills or saws. When I went to college to do engineering I was very surprised on the level of health and safety I had to abide by in the college workshops compared to the real life workplace.
Right, but you elect a board of directors, separate from any union, whose job it is to direct the company for maximizing profit. But all decisions would need to be voted on by the employees
Most factory workers wouldn’t start a factory themselves with their collective money. What a fantasy.
@@flowersthewizard9336 sheet metal production is pretty dangerous but that particular factory sounds like it was poorly run.
Yeah and in a worler coop thats exactly what youd have to do
So the idea is to get 500 people together and start a business??
I’m sure that will go smoothly!!
The majority of workers won’t risk one week’s pay. They want the boss and their unions to tuck them in at night
.. Or if you had a president that tariffed the hell out of foreign trade in favour of keeping jobs and companies at home... oh wait.. That rings a bell.
How about taxed the hell out of corporations to try to pay for their overspending?
That sounds WAY more familiar, as it been going on for 40 years
Actually, workers would give themselves raise and lower the amount of time they had to work until there would be no company.
because all workers are mindless sheep who just crave for short term gain ? Why would they decide against their own interests ?
Or, would you do that in that position ?
I think it might acutally be the other way around: if workers owned the factory, they would directly benefit if it did good. So, there would be a very strong incentive to work hard, because all value the worker creates, he can keep (excluding taxes) or decide to reinvest. if That's not motivating I don't know what is.
Strange that it fails every time its tried. Maybe they just need you to explain it to them.@@DerZerSchlachterator
@@JohnSmith-cn4cw Well, one successful example would be the Mondragon Corporation in Spain. That is a working workers-coop.
Actually, I don't know of any attemps that failed. granted, I haven't looked for these and it certainly hasn't been tried all that often but maybe you could point out some that failed ?
There must be some, after all must conventional busnisses fail in the long run as well.
And your evidence?
@@re1010 Called human nature and your question shows your own bias. Employees have no risk when working at a job. They get compensated for their work plain and simple. These are not slaves, and they are free to leave at any time. Do not start with the Communist bull crap red herring that workers are trapped due to sociological requirement. This is the U.S. If you want to work, you can get a job. It is only in Communist hell holes are jobs restricted and where the true slavery to the state begins.
Then get a group of workers together and open up a co-op factory. It's a free country. NOBODY IS STOPPING YOU!!!!
Patent Lawyers have entered the chat.
Copyright Lawyers have entered the chat.
Zoning Lawyers have entered the chat.
Environmental Lawyers have entered the chat.
CPSC Lawyers have entered the chat
OSHA Lawyers have entered the chat.
*Clears throat* "You were saying...?"
@@AaronCMounts Aww, building it ourselves is just too hard 😢 Let's go steal one from somebody else.
@@Jerzy-George you said, "no one is stopping you". I debunked your claim. It's that simple.
@@AaronCMounts *you said, "no one is stopping you". I debunked your claim. It's that simple.*
So, who stops business owners (before they were business owners)?
I just debunked your debunk.
@@AaronCMounts so what, other businesses deal with that.
He gives the average factory worker WAAAAAAY to much credit.
Show up early? WTF?
Why work a 40 hour week when we only need to work 30? (Or 20...)
That may be true but now they are a voting block and have a cult leader who is happy to dog whistle them. Collectively, that's right COLLECTIVELY they are about to bring America to its knees. THAT is because they don't share in the wealth of the RICHEST country in the world and know it.
Most of them are idiots who can easily be replaced with robots.
That's how socialist think. They automatically think rainbows and butterflies will be swirling around them as they all work in harmony in their beautiful utopia.
In reality, they will be eating eachother alive the next winter when their factory falls apart.
Without the person putting in the capital and taking the risk there would be no factory and no jobs.
first how a average workers get say 50 million to start a factory
@@jaimefish173 They borrow the money, just like the fat cats do. They put together a business case and convince the bank. Of course, since they don't have anybody on the factory floor with a financial or management background, the bank is less likely to loan 50 million bucks to a bunch of people with no experience of doing anything other than their production jobs, the banks might be unhappy about going along with it.
@@regtaylor11631,000 to be worker owners would have to communicate together and unite first off. Then each would have to chip in $50,000 to get a $50,000,000 factory started. It would take at least a year to build and probably another year to set it up. Let's say machine shop, room for inventions, and the whole nine. 100 cnc and lathe machines, provides 100 machinists jobs, 200 assemblers, 100 sales and accounting, 50 inventors, 20 cleaners, 20 buyers of metals, 20 maintenance, etc. I think all 1,000 could have jobs filled in such an investment. Then the pay would have to be equal, with lots of money going back into the co-op. Might work.
@@regtaylor1163 The muslims will have a word with you about that
If government invested in national wealth instead of reducing the size of government and expecting the market to run the economy , then there would be greater prosperity in the nation . The top one percent of wealthy companies and individuals should have their assets taxed and the law should make it illegal to avoid paying tax or seeking the means or advice to do so.
Let’s also make it unlawful for shareholders to invest in public bodies and make it unlawful to earn more than a pensioner could .
For those who were educated , housed and were supported by the nation should not be looking to tax the poor or middle class to make themselves rich .
If we nurture private and state investment , promote SME’s , we should strike a balance between investment and research . Products should be designed to last twenty or more years and altering something by appearance and small technical enhancements are not by themselves desirable or needed .
We should instead focus on systems over growth by percentage . It is because of the latter course we have polluted the planet and made life harder for everybody but the most wealthy .
my employees quit to start their own lawn mowing business. they all came and asked for jobs back cause their wages with me were more than their profits on their own.
Why would you employ lawn mowers who were bad at mowing lawns?
@@misterdoctor9693 I didn't take them back. They just came begging. And though they weren't that good at mowing their struggle was getting customers with their appearance and crappy mower. And cause they realized no one paying them to pass out flyers now and no one buying flyers for them either. And though they may have got twice the pay on yards they did mow, it took 3 times as long with their cheap crap. They didn't have 50k to go get set up good.
@@misterdoctor9693 and your comment brings up a point I make all the time. Everyone says workers need paid more...... until they are the 1 paying and that worker butchers their yard. Now all a sudden the workers don't deserve pay or a minimum wage
@@SgtJoeSmith what you described is a lack of start up capital. It's why wealthier people tend to stay wealthy. And people without wealth can't just "pick themselves up by the bootstraps". That's not a mystery. That's the whole problem.
@@SgtJoeSmith I obviously have no idea the specifics of your small company but that is not a situation that occurs in giant companies. Most people are not arguing that everyone deserves the exact same wage but when there are giant companies where a few people at the top are making 1,000s of times as much as the main body of employees that is a problem.
I worked at an employee-owned company - it went bankrupt and sold on the courthouse steps, the new owner cleaned the place up nicely
I posted about Montgomery-Wards being employee owned and their subsequent bankruptcy.
@@HustleMuscleGhias - I will look for it - one time at that company we had a guy clean it up he spent a week going through stuff on the floor - $12,000 of stuff just throw around most people there did not care even though they owned it
The problem starts with "if workers took over a factory".
They are more than welcome to build their own factory
That part!!
But they often do pay, in the way of massive corporate tax subsidies and forgiveness. Which is actually worse, because the company is taking advantage of every taxpayer. Not just the ones they employ. It has cost the American taxpayers approx $1 million for every 23 jobs Tesla has "created." Not to mention it took almost 20 years before the company even turned a profit. The taxpayers should then own a percentage of the business, because the business wouldn't exist with them. No business can operate in a free market for two decades without turning a profit. Elon didn't earn $200 billion, the taxpayers handed it to him. But now he doesn't want to pay taxes, engages in massive tax evasion scams, and he has spent millions to lobby against other companies receiving the exact same taxpayer funded benefits he got. Hmmmm. Oh yeah, Space X & Starlink, both mostly funded with taxpayer dollars, and who greatly benefit from hundreds of billions in taxpayer funded research and development. Still doesn't want to pay taxes. Hmmmm.
Tax payer subsidies and tax breaks built most of those factories. Redirect the money away from the Corporate sociopaths and we'll be much better off.
Their sweat and toil did build the factory
Sweat and toil don’t build factories- money, brains, and balls build factories. That’s why workers don’t run factories-they work in them.
This professor has had a lot of time to think about how others should run their business.
I bet he would never give up his salary so students could afford school...
God, Wolff is such a concentrated nuclei of sophistic idiocy. I marvel at anyone still bothering to pay him attention.
Imagine this actually being an arguement that someone would take seriously.
If workers took over the factories would they work like they owned the factory? Would they make sure the bottom line remained the bottom line? Would they fire non-productive workers? Would they raise the skill level of the workforce?
Eventually some would be doing more work then others but getting each the sam results at the end. Pilgrams tried this in their beginning in the new world. It didnt worl. Less started doing the work, but all kept eating untell William Bradford governor. Self interest instead of communism tactics. Which is what this guy would get to. First socialism then once factories crash government now takes completely over to communism. Whilliam Bradford said self investment for each individual work their own lands rais their own supplies for the harsh ass winters. If not, who knows because theyrd probably died, all starving, & Americas founders may have been different america being Already a Christian land Harverd & so many more great institutions back then the later pilgrams built & created because of mans good honesty & hard work knows to help the weeker because thats what Jesus wants, but self interests comes first cause more you do richer you get more good you can do, & that is America. Today we have huge institutions mainly government runni ng non profits, in the insurance buisness, student loans, retirments, & our dollar weeker & weeker, & today government is eating us all alive cause of its huge machine stomping on ideas, achievements, crashing our economy, killing our dollar, worth bout 20 cents today if that. Need to get back to old William Bradford's idea. He new human nature & how important self interest is. Like you wanna a job done right, gotta do it yourself, self interest, you know youll do it right to get paid right & their buisness again...
That's is all inprinted your head, you should know that this business is completely out of control.
There would be corruption and greed among the workers
@@dickvandermaas2584 Hey Dick, noticed you didn't answer a single question he asked. Which question did you find unreasonable?
The workers should take over the factory.
Massive pay rises for all, fire the executives, cut management to a skeleton crew, remove company cars, provide top insurance benefits for all and cut working hours. Next, reduce costs by buying in cheaper materials and reduce the amount of consumables used and cut the advertising budget.
Simple! What could possibly go wrong?
You’re right. Now all they have to do is buy their own factories.
What factories, idiot? We don’t have any factories here anymore, they all went to China to exploit slave labor over there. Socialism means workers own and control the means of production. It’s a good idea.
They *have* done it, with the steel industry among other places. They run for a few years, then fail just as they were failing before they bought their plant when the company executives were going to close it.
Ugly fact is that these worker cooperatives yield results too similar to corporate greed, after a brief period when they were subsidized by the retirement plans of the workers and sometimes the state government.
The workers would fight until the factory was out of business.
Ask the sh*theads in Spain c.1936.
Committee's 😂
Yeh those blue collar idiots 😂
Usually worker cooperatives is equally competitive as "traditional" companies.
no, because these workers would vote on a CEO to lead the way and keep it all going
tell the 400 workers to all get a million dollar loan and chip in for a $400 million dollar factory and split the money equally regardless the skill level of job they do or hours they work.
"Just get a million dollar loan" lmao, shits straight outta parody. Took me a second to realize you were being serious.
@Oldass_Deadass_dumbass_channel took me a second to realize guy in video was serious about employees running a factory
This is reminiscent of the serfs in Tsarist Russia having to compensate the landed aristocracy with a lifetime of servitude in exchange for "liberty." Or the British government having to compensate slave owners for the abolition of slavery, only repaying the debt in recent years. Poverty is as much a lifestyle choice as serfdom or slavery, and systemic exploitation is the primary inhibitor of social mobility
@@vilya1o365 I agree with poverty and slavery being a lifestyle choice. I know a lot of slaves.
@SgtJoeSmith I mean, you kinda recognise the exploitation inherent in wage labour, but workers denied the full value of their labour shouldn't really be confused with chattle slaves. Regardless, i thought it was unrealistic to imagine workers having enough surplus, admist a profit driven cost of living crisis, to purchase liberty. The system is designed to keep the poor working and the rich idle. As in feudalism, there exist many obsticles to prevent social mobility and further increase the divide between the wealthy 10% and the other 90%
They would all go broke in a few months. People, as they naturally do, will start fighting with one another. Sooner or later the company will go broke and they'll be outta work.
So what about all the co-op that haven’t gone out of business
unfortunately, this is the reality
Yup, plus try to get 400 people come together and come to any decision. If you give workers Option A or Option B, you are limiting any other option that could work better.
@@professorpigeon6517so they already exist then? Great no need to change anything
@@law9181 no, we won’t move them
So let me get this straight.
You want someone, to create a business or factory. You want them to pay for the incorporation fees, the taxes, the insurance, the lease or mortgage on the facility, hire a staff, establish the management, secure contracts, pay for the equipment and the products and take on the entire liability of the company on their shoulders and then you want them to hand over all the profits to some people who can push a button or pull a lever on the production line?
What person in their right mind is going to go through all of the trouble to create a business and then just hand it off to their employees?
That's just not feasible.
We want the government to assist the workers with capital to buy the business from the owners.
Take mom and pop business for example. There now 70 years old and have 80 employees. The owners kids don't want to take over the company as it's not interested. So the old owners have one option. Have a big business buy them out. All government needs to do when the owner want to sell is give workers the capital to buy the owners out. You can do this with bankruptcy or when companies need a bail out.
@@LeftWingNationalistWhere would the government get that money? You’ve eliminated the rich by socializing the means of production. Where are they going to get the talented engineers who just found a better life in Dubai where they’re being paid what they are worth? Socialism always fails because it doesn’t reward risks.
@ryanb55 if the government can hand out subsidies to private corporations it can hand out subsidies to help workers take.over a business. If you want to argue I've got no interests in that. I'm very pro worker cooperative.
@DestroyTheEstablishment Using the government at taxpayers' expense is definitely not the answer.
Your example is fine, and I get it, but if the workers want to buy the establishment when it goes up for sale, then let them do it.
Why does the government have to step in and use other people's money?
I've seen plenty of "mom and pop" businesses where a few of the workers put up their own capital in order to secure a loan and buy the business from the original owners...that's completely possible to do on your own without any assistance from the government.
It's just not feasible. I don't think we should bail out corporations either, and I also don't think that student loans should be immune from bankruptcy.
@@LeftWingNationalist Where does the government get money for subsidies? It isn’t printing it from thin air!
Y'know, you can be a socialist in a capitalist country... but you can't be a capitalist in a socialist country.
Who owns all those Chinese factories ? The Chinese government ?
Spoken like a parochial who has never traveled or been educated. No capitalists in Scandinavia, huh? In America, capitalist firms build airports and roads paid for by taxpayers. You think capitalists don't like money?
Actually you can it just happens at the end. You can take the capital out of capitalism and call it candy land. But in reality people capitalize on power and access to resources any way they can. If you take the capital away. Humans will capitalize whatever else they can That's why socialism always collapses in corruption and suffering.
Actually yes. Yes they do. You are not free there at all.
The entire western world outside America is pretty damn socialist and we have plenty of capitalism too. No country is entirely socialist or capitalist - a wholly socialist country is a totalitarian dystopia (N.Korea is closest but still has shreds of capitalism in it's market economy), an entirely capitalist one would be mayhem and anarchy with no public order or safety. Too much of either is a problem.
One area I think the US could do with a little more socialism is by having a mental health service and opening psychiatric facilities again. I encountered insane people everywhere the last time I was over, there were people out of their minds walking in traffic and generally being dangerous and unpredictable. Having people like that loose en-mass with guns available is a bit too close to the anarchy side of the equation.
If the products they produce are too expensive compared to overseas products, the factory closes, the workers lose their jobs. Germany is facing this dilemma now.
yeah, no. Germany has no workers Coops.
and the solution is clear, don't import stuff that hurts your local economy. That's why socialists are generally more protectionist.
This is because unregulated trade allows the import of cheap goods without regard to the safety, quality, or working conditions associated with the products. A simple law requiring that all goods being imported meet the same quality and safety standards as domestic goods immediately reveals the reality that cheap goods are only cheap because of exploitation.
@@matthewchristovich So you advocate penalising efficient operations over inefficient operations.... this can be including or excluding geography. You believe that third world countries should not be allowed to compete for work with first world countries without their efforts being taxed by the recipient countries government? I believe you meant to say that buyers should be selective, and ensure that the conditions of the workforce are respected and that there is trickledown? For this reason i dont drive electric vehicles as i believe workers are being enslaved and abused to produce raw materials for batteries.... gets complicated doesnt it? No problem lets have bigger government and that will take care of it all!!
Maybe you dont trust third world governments to protect the safety of their citizens? If so thats a very racist and supremacist view to take of the world...... You probably hate the west and western values and working conditions?
@@davidabbott4085 so, first, put down the Kool-aid before you drown. Second, what I said was: the economic notion of "efficiency" is an oversimplified equation designed to benefit industrial capitalists by not considering the full factors of production including quality of life of the workers and the societal impact of production. Capitalists have for generations worked diligently to ensure that the fewest numbers of items get included on the top line of their balance sheet and have sponsored an entire philosophy that calls that "efficient" and people, like you, buy it. The myth of buyer choice is also a capitalist fabrication because anyone who can successfully remove items from the balance sheet has a competitive advantage borne from disregarding those other factors. The only counter-balance to this is the collective power of the people to rebalance the equation to include important societal concerns through intelligent regulation and appropriate taxation.
In short, you don't get to get rich by making others pay for your gains.
@@davidabbott4085You're so utterly detached from reality its staggering.
Dude's talking as if something prevents workers from creating their own business
No, what he's NOT going to say out loud is that a proletarian revolution must occur for for communism to come about. This guy is an old Marxist, fed on the same fairy tales his grandparents were pushing in the 1930s.
" shut up serf just go start your own kingdom if not happy, mine is immuned to any criticism because I am of divine blessing & untouchable "
@@nicolasm400what are you on about?
the system gives you the illusion that everybody can make it. they can't. the tools to make a business sucessful is rarely given to lower class people.
@@mzyil I didn't say everybody could make it, and I don't think capitalism has ever pretended that's the case. A hell of a lot more make it than have ever done in any other system though.
It isn't against the law for these workers getting together and creating their own factory.
Nope, thats still legal. But socialists are lazy. They just want the profit but not doing the work and dont want to take risks.
Not against the law, but the bank isn't going to lend them the money to compete against their pet monopoly; the media will defame you, politicians will set up laws that only impact you and not your competition; the other businesses who you try to sell those finished parts to will snub your business, and the businesses you try to buy raw materials from will also snub you.
Yeah, and a few co-ops do successfully exist. Doesn't stop all the normal corps from destroying the nation.
and at the same time their wages are so low that they will still never archieve it.
@@tommerker8063 they wont have wages for a couple years if they start their own business.
If workers thought they could run they own factory, they would. No one's stopping them.
There are many worker owned companies.
Opportunity and access to funding is what stops them.
@@Rick-or2kqyeah and the workers should build themselves
@Rick-or2kq Most were started by individuals who had the knowledge, finances, and guts to begin them in the first place.
@@alfredthegreat9543 BS. Investors want profits and will back those that produce...period
You can start a worker co-op now legally instead of bitching about it online
Notice the comrade doesn't say buy a factory or build a factory, it's "take over a factory"
Take over does not mean 'steal'. What is wrong with you? If Ford took over a parts manufacturer would you assume they stole it?
They can’t build one, the money would vanish and there would still be nothing but an empty lot.
They can take one over, which can limp along and soon die, at which point they will still blame capitalism or some other boogeyman for their personal failures.
Workers are less competent and more corrupt than the worst CEOs and executives, they just can’t do as much harm because they’re rarely in charge of anything too important.
@@thomasaitken1345 Most self employed have been employees. You live in strange world where you think business owners have a special kind of genes? Evidence is that co-op organisations are very efficient. Perhaps in some American companies people are kept in boxes so no one knows how the company works and illiteracy is a rule. I do remember a US company a few years ago complaining that it was difficult to recruit people without a drug problem even if they otherwise took anybody regardless of the job. Perhaps there is something wrong with Americans not the co-op system?
Evil cannot build or create, it can only corrupt what is good.
@@theotherside8258yes it does. There's nothing consensual about communism, it's forced. It's premised on theft.
The workers are free to make their own factory if they wish so. Until then they are in no position to tell people how to run their own property.
The rich only exist presently at the acquiescence of the 99%! Revolution is coming that is inevitable! The center cannot hold. This country will not remain intact, and the federal government is presently being irrelevant to the common people.
They're not practically free to do that
@@DM-ur8vc You don't understand what I mean by practically free, do you genuinely belive it is possible for all the workers in factories to decide to create their own factories and run their own property? The existence of your idea of is predicated on the existence and maintainance of an underclass. This is also failing to mention the myriad of ways that those who typically are the working class are trained into self-enforcing their status as a worker and a member of the underclass, via systems put in place by the ruling asset class. You're being purposefully obtuse or generally stupid, hopefully the latter.
Workers could take over a factory, but they won't ever start a factory.
Bingo! Without an entrepenure to provide the capital and assume the risk the factory would never be built.
Nope. Look at Mondragon in Spain.
_All_ those employed are workers, management the lot.
@@johnburns4017 You realize this company needed a fascist regime to destroy it's competition to survive, right? And it was bankrolled by the catholic church.
@@johnburns4017 And the execs still get paid more than floor workers up to 9:1. If US workers wish to do likewise, what is stopping them?
@@tonybloomfield5635
Nothing is stopping them. But legislation can encourage co-ops. Co-ops still operate in the free market,. They are just companies. Many companies went under that could have been saved by going to a co-op.
Also co-ops can and have failed because of the wrong product or service, selling a product or service at the wrong time, etc. They are companies like any other.
Who is stopping them? Pool your money together and get a business loan. This is what made America great.
There are some employee owned companies, usually in a manufacturing setting they don't last long, turns communist real quick
Exactly. No one is stopping workers from doing that very thing. If they put up the money and take the risk then they can do it.
I thought it was guns and racism that made America great?
From whom? The banks who are invested in propping up the Capitalist system and filled with people ideologically opposed to workers doing well for themselves and cutting out the parasites?
Fat chance.
@@Lazyguy22 Wow, the media really did a job on you. This happens literally every day in America. The bank want to collect interest payments, that's all they care about.
Those workers are free to use their own money to start a new factory and do whatever they want with it.
But they won't. They complain because it's easy.
Right. Because we know how popular coming together to coordinate a goal can be for workers in America 🙄
Right!!!
Once the factory is closed. Why don't they just get together to re-open the factory and start producing!😂
@@vt20247 If they buy the factory from the owner then no problem
@@Yusuf.i Coordinating people to cooperate for a common goal is up to the people involved... doesn’t matter what country they live in.
Literally nothing preventing people from doing this right now, and yet this genius didn’t seem to factor in why they don’t.
Ummm there IS something. It's called Riot Police and Police Special Ops teams. And make no mistake: given British history where worker rebellions were mercilessly put down with gunfire, it's almost suicide to attempt that.
They do. workforce buyouts are not unusual but accessing capital to start off is hard as they usually have to pay off the debt accumulated by the previous management.
@@Max_Da_G 😂
You can go and start your own co-op factory. I dare you to try. Maybe it's not impossible but it's damn near it. Even a single lazy, greedy, conniving, or arrogant member could send the whole operation on its underside. There's a reason why even "co-op" communities like natibe tribes and communes don't have that many people. Having such a factory would mean that every member would have to work as much as they pitch in. In other words, the more resources you put into the project means the more time and resources expected from you. In a normal business structure, the lowest workers only put work into the company and get paid in return. If the company goes sideways they only lose their job and don't get the debt the shareholders have to pay off.
The workers can do that if they like. It's a free economy.
It's certainly not free. The government spends 25% of GDP. "free" economies have the government allocating far less of the capital. Lots of this capital gets funnelled into the coffers of the affluent politically connected class. The solution to crony capitalism is not another contrived power structure that is easily corruptible. It's a free market.
"Free economy" I don't think that word means what you think it means...
@@ErgoCogita If free is what you're going for Singapore is your best bet.
@@jolting - It's over 40% of GDP in the U.S. and over 50% in most European countries ... but apart from that, yes.
There can only be one captain on a ship, and there lies the problem.
As soon as that ship starts sinking, the rats jump. I.E. "THE WORKERS"
Yes, but the captain doesn’t need or deserve 25million dollars while the workers are paid pittance
But if the captain can be seen drinking champagne whilst the workers go thirsty, how long he going to be captain.
Point, but a good Captain doesn't reward himself while his workers suffer, he rolls up his sleeves and pitches in. His ass is just as trim and slim as his men. Somewhere along the line the execs forgot how to be good captains
This isn’t a ship and we don’t need a captain
The union boss takes over and steals like a CEO.
he's not talking about a union. but nice try bud
This communist speaking on the assumption that the workers are more moral and responsible than their bosses is absurd. That is why communism is a failure at every turn, people are people no matter what the delusional ones who believe in collectivism are living in fantasy world
Union "leaders " are by far the worst & nastiest thieves ever . Maybe on occasion to be outdone by politicians
Then the workers remove the Union Boss
also apparently he's never been in a union.. in any reputable union, you vote for actions, including who gets paid what. Have there been unions where people siphoned cash for personal gain? Absolutely. Do unions at large do this? No, not even close. and if you believe that propaganda, then you're not being smart or analytical, you're literally doing the bidding of people who are in completely different class than you are (and who are not working in your interest).
One man telling thousands of people what they could accomplish together, but they currently accomplish nothing will always be funny to me.
In order for workers to "have" a company, someone has to act like a capitalist. Since that is morally atrocious, it will never happen.
What is a capitalist?
@@ssmith1908Someone willing to risk everything they have to take a shot at owning a business
@@ssmith1908 Someone who provides capital for one. You know, to start the business in the first place.
@@ssmith1908the person who puts their capital (money) on the line for the business.
If it's that simple Why aren't factory workers collectively buying their own factory and running it. Cuz no one is willing to take the risk. Risk takers DESERVE the 25million.
Collective associations of workers can’t agree to do anything but less, and less, until no one has a job left.
Businesses are built by high energy highly motivated risk takers, NOT your average employee.
Where on earth do get that conclusion from? Must be from the mirror.
@@MrDportjoe
Nasty personal attacks are the first line of defense of the true believers, and the last bastion of the utterly contemptuous.
You keep dreaming your dreams of a socialist paradise. Never has worked, never will.
All the workers have to do is buy a factory.
And then co-operate in making a profit.
Happens all the time, they’re called co-ops.
@@matthewsmith5374
'
@matthewsmith5374
4 hours ago
Happens all the time, they’re called co-ops.'
Then there's no need for any political action, is there, including exempting unions from the ordinary criminal laws against trespass and assault.
@@matthewsmith5374one thing about co-ops i know of they still have people voted in usually to make decisions kinda like how a corporation is run except the stock holders are the workers themselves they can't just decide to make changes like how much they get paid they have to elect a guy to make that decision then there are farmer co-ops where farmers own a business they buy/sale to bit the workers dont have a controling share the farmers keep atleast 51%
@@sqike001ton yes there’s lots of different types of co-ops. There’s co-op grocery stores too.
There's a reason workers don't run factories. If it weren't for those executives and owners who risk their capital, workers wouldn't have jobs. Case closed.
It's possible to have an enterprise without a boss (without centralizing power at the top). Yet, have you ever saw an enterprise without workers? Never. That right there tells you which one depends on the other.
@@nicolasm400 Have you ever seen an enterprise without the necessary equipment to run the enterprise? Never. Where does that equipment come from? Capital. Who provides that capital? The owners of the enterprise. That right there tells you which one depends on the other.
The point here is if it's sooooo easy and the workers can do it all themselves, then they should try. See if they can put together enough capital between them in equal amounts to buy the equipment necessary to run it. They need to start it all themselves from scratch. If it was as simple as you think (and this guy thinks) you'd see a lot more of it going on in the real world.
Think of how Apple got started. Amazon. Microsoft. Tesla. Etc. Some of the biggest companies in the world that employ thousands of people earning good money. They didn't start out with hundreds of people working and deciding things. Do you think you are going to get 100, 1000 or 10s of thousands of people together putting up capital to start businesses like these? Oh and who is going to make the decisions? Are you going to put it to a vote between 1,000 people and go with that? How about 30,000? 80,000? 120k? Good luck with that.
@nicolasm400 bosses are still workers wise guy.
That’s a myth. Those executives and owners aren’t risking anything. After sending the jobs overseas get walk away with a $10 million dollar bonus. If the company goes bankrupt they still get their millions.
@@davidhutchison3952 and that's why they should enter & participate in the enterprise just like everyone else (one person = one vote) instead of having special privileges and capturing the power and creation of value for themselves
The desperate anger in his eyes is so transparent, it's embarrassing.
Why should he not be angry? I'm Norwegian and we're a small country, but by far the biggest owner of USA. Right now, Norwegian corporations are receiving billions of tax dollars from America for our companies to exploit cheap American labour, while Americans pay healthcare insurance to Norway. It's absolutely wonderful for us, but it's extremely unfair to the Americans. As long as America just bites the pillow, the suffering of the Ameircan people will grow.
Those workers just voted themselves redundant as they Labour costs are to high and the cheap imports from the CCP occupied China meant nobody wanted to buy their overpriced goods.
Word . Go socialist/worker owned and watch how fast the country becomes nationalist/closed economy and can no longer compete in a global market.
Cancel free trade, restore tariffs, a Chinese made
car costing the same as American made, no contest.
@@regtaylor1163that approach would work but then China would do the same for American products and severely impact exports. I do agree though that something needs to be done to provide a more comfortable and satisfying standard of living for the working class.
@@chalkyloverAmerica doesn’t really have to worry about the global market, most things it can produce itself and anything it can’t it can just overthrow governments and take their resources.
@@tonalambiguity3345
American goods are already more expensive than
Chinese knockoffs. The effect would be in our stores,
price comparison shoppers would be more drawn to
American cars, appliances, TVs, electronics. We could
make a dent in the goods produced by slave and child
labor in the orient.
The most naive man alive.
Typical communist.
Self diagnosis.....
Care to explain.
I vote we give ourselves an unsustainable raise.
@@msryynhbgnk5589 and guess what, no one else is going to vote for that, because that affects everyone else. And in this theoretical system, the workers have a equal say.
Especially since a unstainable raise is going to be noticed.
The socialist who leads other socialists, becomes the elite socialist, who becomes a capitalist.
Can't have that can we, an elite class pulling the strings because they are so so wealthy. No indeed.
He probably always was a capitalist.
No, they never become capitalists, they really on the government to steal money from the hardworking people and give them to the socialists.
How odd to conclude that.
Not exactly, they typically become a dictator.
He needs to read animal farm 🙄
I bet he already did. Maybe you need to understand what that book is about?
you do realize this Dr Richard Fox. He's a Marxist. He makes sense at the beginning when hes just talking basic economic then he talks about how to fix economic problems then the Marxism kicks in
Yeah…he already did. You’re backwards there, friend.
@666xurxo you've clearly never read it. What happens when the filthy pigs gets in charge?
@@Fabermain I did read it, but unlike you I understood it. You don't need one group, (pigs or any other), "to be in charge" after we liberate ourselves. Orwell was a libertarian Communist, or Anarcho-Communist if you like, therefore he didn't believe in ralations of authority. You need to understand what you read.
If workers were obliged to make strategic decisions about the company, they would disagree and nothing would ever get done.
Yes. This man is not a business person, he's a worker. What if half the employees want to expand and half don't?
And let's not mention automation. LOL
They tried it, somewhere
I think it was called the USSR.
It has been shown that a democracy which brings multiple point of views and promotes debate & discussion has statistically more chances of bringing smart decisions than an oligarchy, where perspective is limited and where debate tends to be suppressed or simply not necessary.
@@nicolasm400 In public policy decissions, I would agree. But that doesn't work well in a business atmosphere. Never has, never will.
@@allenestes5265 If we already understand that royalty or dictatorship is chaotic and unefficient for our governments, please tell me what makes it so different for our enterprises?
Those jobs wouldve never existed because those 400 factory workers never pooled their money to start that factory. If you want a worker co-op then start one. Dont try to take what someone else has created.
Nothing is stopping workers from starting their own company and doing exactly this. I wish them the best
It takes money. Who has it? Certainly not the people who do the work. The Bolshevik revolution failed for two reasons: (1) People are shiite, selfish, with no sense of community, (2) Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin -- these guys were theoreticians. No one had ever attempted what they wanted to do, and they certainly didn't know how to do it. It could be argued that NOW is the time to try it again -- the dictatorship of the worker. At least this time they know what does NOT work.
I'm being slightly facetious, but only slightly. The greedy, avaricious corporate board members and CEOs have replicated the Tsatist model of dysfunction, and have squeezed the system to another collapse point. If the now-savvy workers of the world capture power and adopt a tweaked, Fox-friendly name, maybe Communalists, where will the blame lie?
@@OslerWannabeah yes the USSR failed yet lasted 3 generations 😂
@@SergyMilitaryRankingsfor history that's barely anything
@@JoeManneke it proves it worked
@@OslerWannabeThe workers need to save up, and put their money into a fund, once the fund reaches a good amount of money, it will be easier to get a bank loan. As far as I am concerned, saying that workers have no money is just an excuse, if 1000 workers each put $50 aside each month they would have 600000 USD in a year, which is plenty to start a small production, perhaps not reach full employment right away but at least get the ball rolling, and that is even without considering what loans they would be able to get.
Guys like this act like work just magically appears in a building with all of the necessary equipment machinery and leadership in place.
The workers would give themselves pay raises until nothing is left.
The owners and shareholders are already doing that. I think the point would be to offer fair wages to the employees. Not just allowing every single penny of "profit" to go to one person or group of people. This thinking is killing the middle-class. There's going to be no one left to buy their products. It's too much reminiscent of the board game "Monopoly".
The executives started the company so they are invited to the profits and reinvesting it into the company. Perhaps giving the workers raises if they can
Just look at Detroit and the American auto industry as a whole.
@@hurch1915 Owners of a company making money? The horror!
@@hurch1915 If you actually did this, the workers would immediately realize they could ship the factory to China and not have to work in the factory all day. According to the figures the guy uses in the video, at least 25 million in profit is going to the executives after all the workers and other expenses are paid. If the workers suddenly owned the factory, they would realize they could make 62.5k each per year just by being part owner, without having to work in a factory all day, even by keeping it in America or wherever. And they would realize they could make even more by shipping it overseas, without having to work in a factory all day. Either way, most of the workers aren't going to want to be the workers any more.
Factories do not get built by collectives. It always takes one person and a bunch of capital to risk their money for a dream. The person who risks it all gets the highest rewards. The workers can always quit and go start their own company and then be toldt they are evil by their workers for making more than them.
Does the person starting the company have to pay their employees slave wages? Is the one and only purpose of the company to make the most money for it's owner even if it means the employees basically starve? I guess so.
Do you have an example where workers are being paid slave wages. I have often found that workers are paid what is fair for their skills and education. @@hurch1915
The only risk that someone with a lot of capital has to take is the risk of becoming a worker.
Their jobs wouldn't go away but their customers would.
No, their jobs would go away. Because none of these people know how to run the business side of the operation. And if you don't know how to run the business side the factory will be mismanaged and close.
People are greedy and stupid. People need real leadership.
This sounds great but then what happens when a Chinese factory opens up with cheap labor and buyers decide to buy from there? It doesn't matter that you decided to still run the factory, because you're no longer competing with the Chinese factory, and you'll have to shut down due to the fact you're making no money.
These things aren't trivial.
The union bosses will get the money instead of the execs.
Co-cops are seldom unionized BECAUSE organizing drives only succeed when bad management leads to anger, injury and or death see Memphis Sanitation Workers strike 1968 Many mine organized after major disasters as well. The IBEW was, in large part founded on keeping the workers safe. This also applies to longshore and warehouse work, pulp and paper mills, steel mills and railroads.
Both will get theirs.
let them start their own factories
Yes, let them eat cake. Oh wait where did I hear that from before. We know what that led to.
with what money
@@christians1131 Easy, do as 99.9999% of all other company owners; borrow money, take loan on your house, live on more or less nothing to make the company float.
But you dont want to do that, am I right? You, like all socialists, are just lazy and will NEVER take the extreme risks. You just want to take the profits of others risks. Same as always.
@@christians1131bank
u seem to forget that money is a thing in this world we live in
I worked for an oil company in the 80s, the union could literally not run a small pub for the workers, without missing money and fraud, they got sued by the bar workers, they were shut down multiple time by liquor inspectors, then they tried to tell a very successful company how to run its business.
I can give you opposite examples where unions have worked with management to deliver substantial efficiencies because workers can see where waste is and when management are acting counter productively.
Probably because it was a private union connected with the mob. All Unions must be State Unions.
"I worked " Was you running the pub?
"I provide bad example therefore everything else must suck and totally not because my union was ran by idiots."
@@eddiemarohl5789 no extrapolation, just a data point.
I've worked at multiple tech start-ups and each one is usually founded by one or two guys. Almost all workers would rather work 9-5 and get their paycheck instead of investing all their time and money back into the company.
I don’t understand why a group of factory workers don’t get together, start a company, build their own factory, buy their own tools, make their own product, get their own product distribution, ship their own product, market their own product, sell their own product, and hire more workers to help their own business grow.
Why doesn’t this happen?
I don't know. Maybe their Daddies aren't millionaires?
@@hurch1915why should that stop them? The richest men in the world didn’t come from money
it happens everyday..
Being a factory worker and running a company are two different skillsets.
and once they start hiring people and all the workers baggage they will be forced to hire executives and an HR dept.
The workers could ALL vote to outsource the production to China and just be shareholders and earn passive income. 😂
Yes! They'd take the 25million divide it amongst themselves, and then move
the production to China, and take the income from sales rights. And then
they'd start a new company ...
Funny but probably true.
Long term China will put prices up and screw them all over and china will be rich and the west will be poor.
if they were owners. they would have to pay for the products that were outsourced, ensure that they were of sufficient quality, then market and sell them. Not passive at all.
The pilgrims learned this lesson after just one winter. Not everybody pulls their own weight in a collective. After that they built individual homes.
The company would fail in a heartbeat if the workers took over. It's called Tragedy of the Commons,
💥
Exactly.
If workers make collective decisions, they will be out of a job either way.
One things for sure, if the workers formed a cooperative and were responsible for the running and expansion of a business they wouldn't vote to go on strike for more pay and less hours.
Yes they would. Some, if not most,would vote for more pay, less hours, less work in those hours. Those who had a more responsible head would try to veto it. Then you get those who want it striking, or just voting them out, getting rid of those more business minded, because they act to much like the former fat cats.
Just look at what happened in Russia after the revolution. They got rid of the business owners, and the managers, the ppl who could and did run the businesses. Put in those from the lower levels to run the places. Those that did bad ran the businesses to the ground, those that did good and help the businesses profit were looked down on, because to run a business profitable( and not in the ‘putting money in their own pockets’ way, just in the ‘business does well’ way) knew that you needed to set rules, quotas, demand workers to actually do work.
Unions love to ignore their part in jobs leaving the country.
I'd say Free Trade Agreements have more to answer for than Unions. The better question would be for companies to ask why their workforce felt the need to get unionized in the first place.
@@Tqoratsos666 They unionized because socialist vampires told them all that they'd be given more money if they did, and then they all lost their jobs and the socialists ran away.
@@robertmartin6800 you're not seeing the bigger picture. People wouldn't be able to be sucked into the socialist vampires, as you rightly call them, if companies didn't offshore the jobs. Capitalistic ideals are around competition and it's impossible to compete with countries that pay their workers slave wages. The issue lies with the politicians that made free trade agreements with countries that have much lower wages and regulations. Those politicians would have been lobbied by special interest groups that work on behalf of the billionaire class to make those agreements. So unfortunately, even though I hate communism and socialism, this late stage global crony capitalism is doing nothing for the people in the western world. We've been sold a lie.
Capitalism made America great, the same capitalism then capitulated it and made China great 😂
We need hard working innovative people to make products the world wants at a greater value than other competitors in the world.
And now Vietnamese are stealing those jobs from the Chinese with even lower wages and few safety concerns. 😅
Bingo. Read up on Deng Xiaoping who is considered the "Architect of Modern China." He became the leader of China a couple years after Mao died and implemented far-reaching capitalistic economic reforms that greatly improved the economy and brought order back to China and led China to what it is today.
How about instead of “taking over a factory” they build one themselves it’s a free country
In the late 80's,Workers in Wentzville, Mo, voted, through collective bargaining, to give the workforce a raise that closed the plant. The knew it would, was well informed that it would close the plant. They knowingly voted themselves out of a job.
They didn’t know. They probably thought whoever was telling them was bluffing.
The thing I hate about unions is
They NEVER tell workers to work harder.
As long as they own the factory, they can make these decisons. There are tradeoffs to all choices.
If worker coops worked, they would. They don't, that's why they're rare.
i tried this. everyone fought and got greedy but no one made money cause they were too busy fighting. then when something broke no one wanted to stay late to fix it or demanded extra pay. like there is no extra pay. you already got the profits. they all quit to work for walmart or mcdonalds so they would get paid for every hour there.
If the workers ran the factory, they would never have had 25 million to give ANYONE.
I owned a factory and the workers demanded more pay. I told them if they fund the next project they could keep all the profits as their pay. They asked what if there is no profit, I answered no profit no pay. They said that’s not fair. I said now you know how I feel.
So your company didn't have capital? It was all funded from your personal finances? If not then how would it be fair and comparable to demand the workers to use their personal finances to support the company? Instead of increasing their wage you could have paid them with shares in the company. Then their efforts in making the company profit would directly benefit them and they'd have more say in how profits are spent improving the factory to make it more efficient and profitable.
@@heylister Says the guy who’s never owned a company. And yes, I have.
@@mck316 and how does that counter his argument ?
All the workers need to start their own company/business is money and either a product or a service. But then you have to know how to attract buyers/customers. That's where the executives come in.
He's also wrong about outsourcing jobs to other places. Over the last 20 years, of the top 500 businesses in the US those that refused to outsource have had a lower net increase in American Jobs than those that do outsource. Sounds weird, but it's true. Need to cut the budget by 10% or the whole division gets shut down? Outsourcing 10 jobs is a lot better than 50 people getting laid-off. Want an expansion, but can't quite make the money cover it? Outsource a few jobs. Employing 10 more people is better than NOT employing the 20 you didn't have the budget for.
@@matts1166 Sounds good. Those who know how to run a business run it well, those who want to run a business but don't know how will fail
You're right. The workers should have agreed to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, for 10 cents an hour.
If workers had the motivation, drive, intellect, and business acumen to run a company, then they wouldn't be workers, they'd be owners and they'd do the exact same types of things that owners do now.
Guy, many many workers are motivated, driven, smart, and even have acumen. But the thing is that owning a company is a risky proposition, most companies even many run by motivated, driven, smart, well trained people fail. Look at NeXT, Steve Jobs ran that and it failed. And Steve Jobs is like one of most successful company owners of all time.
My wife owns her own small business, she takes a lot more risk, if her business goes under, it's a huge blow for her. If my company goes under, I collect my last paycheck and I might be be at work someplace else on Monday. Sure, I don't have the same ceiling, I'll never potentially make as much, but I also don't have the same risk. The reason I don't take the risk isn't because I'm incapable, lacking drive, dumb, or lacking understanding of business. I've chosen a path that has lower potential payout, but less risk. It's a choice, and in my case probably a smart one.
@@davidpeters6743 So, you lack the drive to run a company. You've made my point.
@@kirkjohnson6638 No, I lack the interest. What company do you run? Can I get your LLC? I'd love to support your endeavors.
@@davidpeters6743 I'm retired from a life of corporate employment. Like you, I did not have the desire to run my own company because I preferred the challenge of working on high tech aerospace products. There is no way I could make a startup company and get the funding needed to get into such a business. Actually, it's not impossible, but it would require that I be pretty much like Elon Musk and even though I'm bright, I hold no delusions of being that bright.
@@davidpeters6743 there are millions pick one
Simon Thompson CEO of Royal Mail got a 700,000 pounds pay off when he left claiming the company was broke and the CWU bought into this and the postal workers got a terrible deal 😢
Why weren't the workers blamed for the company being broke? Hahahaha.
As a former RM worker and Senior CWU Rep I can confirm that both the RM hierarchy and the CWU top brass are all corrupt and working together. the CWU sent their bully boys down to my office once BCS I set up a website and invited all the union members at our sorting office to anonymously complete questionnaires and write their thoughts on both the Union and the RM. There were more than a few expletives being thrown around that night when the CWU descended on me, I threw them out of the office and told them I would expose them all bunch of scum
And RM is infrastructure built by tax funds and stamps I'm guessing!? Selling/looting of this type of tax funded infrastructure is probably the most profitable crime in World history.
If the workers took over the factory, there wouldn't be any profits.
yeah obviously, because profit is a capitalist concept. They would be no need for profit as there are no shareholders. In such a system all "profits" would be reinvested or payed out to the workers.
@@DerZerSchlachterator Yanis Varoufakis FTW.
[C I T A T I O N N E E D E D]
The new economic system of socialism would not need to Infinitly generate profit. Rather improving production due to new technologies and getting rid off the capitalist middle man. Added value due to production can than be used to finance other sectors like education, healthcare and other sectors that might be cost intensive in the short to middle term but will reap great benifits to society in the long Term. There simply wouldnt be a need for profits in the future society.
@@bf2229 Long term will be most defined by AI. Sam Altman's paper on "Moore's Law for Everything" speaks of the downward spiral of costs for everything that is our future.
I follow the progress of AI through several of the best YT channels and I would estimate that we are somewhere between 5 and 10 years from the world being completely changed as conservative estimates looking at the rate of progress currently.
All human effort won't be gone by then for goods and services, but the message will be clear: it's headed OUT and only a matter of time.
If you could make more money by moving to China, then those 400 workers would absolutely vote to move the factory. They make more money, don't have to pay as many taxes AND somebody else has to do the work for them? It's no different than what any company does by moving. As long as the workers retain ownership and get a share of the profits, they would absolutely outsource if it meant generating MORE profit.
They tried that... it was called the Soviet Union. Who'd that work out. Did the workers put up millions to start that business? No, they just want.. and want... and want!
Socialism is all about deviding, not producing. Thats why ALL socialistic experiments leads to starvation.
There are legit criticisms of what this guy is saying, but yours isn't one of them. There were a few people in the Soviet Union who favoured worker's control, they were crushed in about 1921 and most of them were shot either then or in the 1930's.
The Soviet Union never actually practiced true communism. It's always a cult of personality.
The Soviet Union wasn't workers taking over, it was mostly peasants, the army, and the academics.
@@bingbongbang8895 communism only works in stone age economy's.
I've never heard of a bunch of workers starting a factory, risking their own money...only stealing one.
Don't the owners borrow money, and get tax breaks and incentives to start businesses? Well, yes, they do.
@@theamericanopry They do, because it's a huge risk and it's key to our economy. You seem to ignore things like down payments and credit from suppliers and that given to customers.
@@tomj528 I can't even understand what you are saying, " ...and that given to the customers." What exactly. Tesla only shows a profit because of Federal subsidies and carbon credits. I understand the importance of pushing technology, but don't act like the boy genius isn't sucking from the government tit, while screwing workers and the environment.
@@theamericanopry When a "factory" sends their product(s) out to their "customer" IE: a wholesaler or directly to stores they send a bill with a 30-90 term typically. They're extending short term credit to their "customers".
Government incentivizes behaviors and while we can debate the efficacy and morality of doing so til the cows come home, realistically it's beyond our control or influence. They want a shift to electric vehicles...vehicles the majority don't want, the batteries are too resource heavy and that can't be supported by the electrical grid. At the same time they curtailed domestic oil exploration/production, wasted the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and further diluted our currency which will lose our dollar's status as the World's Reserve Currency as part of this "genius" plan.
Elon Musk has stepped in to create jobs, advance the technology and keep us ahead of the Chinese while using the government's incentives to do so...hate the game, not the player.
@@theamericanoprycan you tell me where I can get some of these incentives to start my own business? That would be amazing.
Forget profits. Who pays for the factory? Who takes the financial risk? Nothing stops workers from putting up money and buying the factory.
Same as today. Who do you think pays for Tesla factories? lol
@@theamericanopry With Tesla it's Federal Government loans that pay for the factories as for Tesla in over 20 years in business, Tesla has only ever made a profit once.
You're right. The factories wouldn't have been moved elsewhere. They'd just stop recieving business because it's too expensive for other companies to pay for that factory's services.
They do. W L Gore, John Lewis to name but a few. Need more of them!
Zero bonus this year for John Lewis staff. Chief Exec was paid £1 million
Yeah that sounds like a fair co-operative.
@@genghiscarnage4015 I think it was originally a fair co operative. But it appears things have changed in recent years, the tories have got their claws into it
@@fredatlas4396Just look at the CEO and the Board!!!
What if workers ban inhumane 12 hour shifts. Solidarity, real power, stick together and refuse to work 12 hour shifts
A bus load of people just arrived from south of the border, and they can't wait to take your position.
@@trollbane66 That's not solidarity, and I live in the UK. There were some workers here in London from Chile, and the company they worked at was basically crap. They were being exploited, no health and safety procedures, NO proper safety equipment, PPE, low wages, no other benefits, proper payed holidays etc etc. So one day they had enough and contacted a new union here in the UK called United Voices of The world, they gave them good advice. Then they stopped work and told their supervisor their demands, the supervisor attacked one of them. So they told him we are going home now, no more work until our demands are met in full. A manager came and tried to calm them down, he got in his phone and said I will order some ppe, safety equipment. They said that's not good enough, we we won't be back to work until you meet oir demands in full. After 2 or 3 weeks the company gave in and hace them everything they wanted. So you see solidarity does work. And these were supposed to be cheap Labor from Chile on visas most likely
@@fredatlas4396 Same thing happens in US They send buses to the border to pick them up. Then put them up in mobile homes, sometimes 10 to a 2 bedroom trailer. Then they charge them rent and utilities.
It's a choice
If they do not like the hours on the contract they signed, they can look for another job
Capitalism working as _intended_ 💀☠💀
Lol the workforce owning the means of production is a form of socialism, and not any kind of capitalism
@@dzonbrodi514yes,& bring it on ❤ socialism
@@saoirsehaslonglegs2313move to Venezuela
@@natebreivik6607 state-owned does not equal worker-owned
Yes, by lifting more people out of poverty than any other system
If you want workers to run the factories, they better start building and financing the factories themselves. A business owner isn't paid for labour, they're paid for coordinating everything from procurement to production to sale.
You know that most people at the top build nothing right?
The investor class simply move money around and collect pay from other people's work whilst using every tax loophole possible to give nothing back to society.
@@DisgruntledPeasant You know most people at the top aren't libertarian capitalists either?
If you want all the benefits-you have to take all the risks.
Yes, that's what employee owned means. Thanks for that insight 😜
Tell me then, what risk does a CEO usually shoulder? And why do other countrie's workers get a lot more anyway?
Obviously, you are not from America. Bank Bailout of 2008.
@@CptApplestrudl The CEO is the first to get fired if they have a bad quarter
@@mlayton1904 A bailout is not free money it's a loan
The State is the one organization in which the help gets to vote for their own raises, not to mention all the embezzlement. #abolishTheState
To own the means of production instead of doing all the work and the profits going to rentiers
You mean. The CEO initially puts at risk all of his wealth and future hood to pursue the establishment of a business. He takes all the risk and if he does it successfully he then gets to hire people who have put no risk or money into that company to work for him under contract.
I don’t see why the workers should own the means of production. They don’t put any risk or wealth into the company, they are simply hired and then paid an agreed amount. Unlike a business owner a Worker doesn’t lose everything if that business faulter, instead they can move onto another place of work relatively easily.
@xJ0K3R1 little risk when it's a limited company
@@Kirovxxworkers risk more than owners. If a factory closes, the workers suffer more than the former owners do
@@markwelch3564and workers also risk been injured or killed by the work. No CEO risks their lives.
@@Kirovxx You must love the taste of leather 👢😛
How many people in history were killed for this exact idea
There is nothing stopping these ‘’workers ‘’ from doing this. They haven’t. They won’t. They want the reward for others risk and hard work.
Yes there are forces stopping them, mostly their lack of money. Society favors the rich, lying about workers being lazy just does the riches work for them.
And sometimes they do. Those are called co-ops.
You know who is actually getting paid for other people's work? The investor class.
They make money by already having money.
You think they earned the original money by hard work? It's always the same: Fraud, exploitation and theft.
I think you should research co-operatives before you talk rubbish.
@@DisgruntledPeasant I couldn't agree more. Just look at the Kennedys, Roosevelts, Gettys, etc. It was robber barons that built this country, not to do anything good for society or the workers but to enrich themselves.
I would love to see a 400 person board meeting with everyone fighting about whether to put money into a contingency fund or pay it to themselves. See how that cluster fuck works out
Never heard of a co-op before?
@@Jaffjv and who puts up the money? Is it exactly equal or do some invest more than others for a greater percentage of ownership? How is that different than shareholders that just work there? And do you think that could work in a 20,000 person company? Is there a heirarchy of decision makers? And what do you do when stupid people with no business acumen are in decision making roles just because they are included in ownership.
@@garym.5931 bonds, business loans, etc. Like most companies, owners typically don’t want to invest their own money if they have other ways to raise capital. And yes, to in large co-ops of course there are hierarchies of decisions just like any organization. The shareholders (people who work in the company) will vote for someone qualified to make the day to day decisions like any board, and if they don’t perform well they can be replaced. You are under the impression that leadership in a co-op is picked completely randomly, regardless of business acumen
they wouldnt fight. they all agree to pay themselves higher wages. then when a $1 million machine breaks and they have to stop production and no money to fix or replace it and no more money coming in they well start robbing and shooting each other trying to get paid for their hours by some one else there.
@@SgtJoeSmith soooo…. you’re describing just like most current large complies with CEOs and pricey board members? Lol. Just look t what happened to GE
Workers don't necessarily make competent managers. They are not interchangeable.
These companies work, do you think they all spend time on a production line and then spend hours per day doing management. They still have skilled managers.
THEN DO IT!!! Literally nothing is stopping you from getting 5,000 people together and starting a collective company.
Last time I checked the workers have a right to vote. Who is this economic nitwit ?
Richard Wolf, I actually sat next to him at a bar once and got into a similar argument about how I take advantage of my four construction employees, you’re right about him being a nitwit
They have a right to vote, but not on any of the decisions on their own company.
@@ErikratKhandnalie It’s not the workers company, it’s the owners or shareholders company
@@trapiconti4001 I mean, not with that attitude. The workers are the ones who built the company, the ones who actually create value. What do they need the owners for? Why shouldn't the owners be cut out of the loop? Why should the workers subject themselves to the rules and exploitation of the owner?
@@ErikratKhandnalie Nothing is stopping you from saving your money, opening an llc and starting your own company. Then you can learn about taxes, make sure you’re following local and federal laws and be responsible financially if the company fails or is sued. Nobody is exploiting workers, go get another job if you don’t like it. Did you really just ask “why the owners shouldn’t be cut out of the loop?” Because that is theft. How about we cut you out the loop and give your phone back to the people who built it, there the ones who created the value didn’t they? The entitlement in your Marxist response is truly disgusting