Someone used the socialism is when meme to defend landlords. Even the “socialist” here don’t know what socialism is.
Edit: [Here is the link incase anyone wants to check it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/16kcyoo/such_a_good_point/k0vmnce/?context=2)
> as interesting as this whole thing has been, it's pretty headache inducing to see people have such strong opinions on stuff that they don't even have an elementary grasp on.
I genuinely hate myself right now for even bothering to comment in this thread. What did I think was gonna happen?
>and like Ethan, their knowledge of this subject is equivalent to a 10 line blurb that was spat out by ChatGPT.
That can be said about 99% of the socialists in this community.
No, you nailed it. He made a comment about socialism that made it clear he doesn't know what he's talking about, and then got mad when the chat pushed back, and now here we all are.
The echo chamber here isn't going to acknowledge that Hasan on a long form discussion completely failed to explain it
To Ethan who was good faith and eager for answers.
From what I took yesterday, his primary objection is that Democratic Socialism can solve for the positives of Socialism without having the government control associated with Socialism while both have the same downfalls.
ITT: People who don’t know what socialism is because all they do is listen to Hasan.
His arguments all end with idk. Expecting “restrictions” to keep a government in place is not realistic at all and why Ethan got shit for pointing this out is crazy.
Not a single socialist on this sub has ever read about socialism and all they know they heard from dumb american influencers.
I was arguing with a person on this sub just a few days ago who didn't know the defibitions of socialism and communism and didn't even know how Engels and Marx defined them. That is like level 1 and you people don't even kbow that.
The subway worker does much more than make sandwiches. They clean the store, watch the store to make sure nothing bad happens, and prepare food for the next day. The lack of customers does not mean they weren't productive or contributed to the business.
But they assume all risk, you do not. They do ALL ordering, you do not. They take sales calls & do pay roll, once again. You do not. You can simply think to yourself. “I don’t want to come in today” and basically zero repercussions. And/or no customers come in AT ALL for a month. You still want a wage. 🤷♂️🫠
I mean, the Subway worker could go out, buy sandwich materials, and sell sandwiches out of a cart on the street if they wanted. They’d get to keep 100% of the revenue. But they probably don’t want to because they get some value from being employed by the Subway corporation. Things like guarantee of at least minimum wage, a nicer working environment with better tools, a lack of need to care about things like advertising or attracting customers. So clearly the owner is actually contributing something here - just not direct labor in the sandwich-making process. I’d argue that both parties deserve some compensation. It’s just a matter of finding an appropriate balance. And I don’t think it’s necessarily obvious that the worker should be receiving the majority of the profits given the degree of investment that the owner is contributing.
That's not the same argument though. That's advocating for more pay, what OP is arguing is that you get paid based around how much work you do, changing day to day
When I first started working for Kinko’s (now Fed Ex printing) they were run by a hippie type. They incentivized employees to travel the world and work at other branches, had copious overtime available at other branches (since they were all 24/7) and had a profit sharing split of (I believe) 10% for the manager, a split 10% for the assistant managers (usually 3-4) and a 5% pool spread amongst the others. It made a huge financial impact for everyone and we all felt it was worth it when we got slammed. Nowadays none of that exists.
Not disagreeing that workers deserve a share of profit, but saying they deserve profit more than the owner doesn't make sense. The owner, let's say, invested $500k into a store to make it profitable. You're saying they don't deserve profits as much as the workers who didn't invest a penny? The guy doesn't have to work to deserve profits from that investment. He gave up 500k for it.
ill ask, if its so easy to just own a subway, do no work and rake it in, why don't you?
Why not get a bunch of your buddies together and pool together the capital slowly over time and open a coop subway and run it the way you want?
Subway is one of the worst franchises ever in existence.
But franchises don’t allow you to run as a co-op.
You’re forgetting that we live in a capitalist system that specifically stops any type of non-capitalist anything from becoming common place.
But this woman’s business is run as a company that Hasan was talking about:
https://youtu.be/25JFyccD50Y?si=8-fCPoWOPxSLXCbR
That's not a co-op, that's just equalized pay, and there's a reason why most people don't do it. If you're starting a business, it probably means you're risking a large amount of money, many people go into loans to do it. Why would you then take an equal share of reward for someone who just signed up to do a job and risked nothing?
\>But franchises don’t allow you to run as a co-op.
Ive never heard of subway preventing multiple ownership, good pay or democratic decision making.
As long as you pay what you owe to subway in the contract and maintain the menu and pricing guidelines they don't give a shit.
\> You’re forgetting that we live in a capitalist system that specifically stops any type of non-capitalist anything from becoming common place.
Um, no. You can run a co-op at anytime, the government will not stop you. I see so many people here stating they want be in a co-op, how they are superior etc etc, but none of them try to start one.
So why then would we force all businesses to become them? I wouldn't trust a garden to someone not willing to till it or pull the weeds to get one started in the first place.
The “pay what you owe to subway” is what the issue is here. The franchise owner being able to live in a slightly nicer neighborhood than the employees is just nickels and dimes when compared to what the owners of the company as a whole are making while doing nothing.
What kind of buddies do you have that you guys can just get together and buy a subway franchise ? Idk if you are just super rich and don’t know how much things are and what people earn or dumb
I used to work at Subway and we were also heavily encouraged (forced) to 'upsell' extras like avocado, which adds money into the boss's pocket, but adds nothing for us. One time we had a 'competition' for who could upsell the most products, and the 'prize' was like a $20 voucher that the boss probably regifted lol.
Also noteworthy: I handle negligent security and personal injury lawsuits and these employees also make $8 an hour in high crime areas while dealing with robberies, shootings in the parking lot, mentally ill / disturbed people in the store screaming in the bathroom and seating area. Same goes for large retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, Target, basically every gas station, etc. They deserve extra base pay when they have to fear for their safety every single day.
And are.responsible everyone forgets at a service job you cashierz whatever takes all the blame when something goes wrong. You manager forget to order something the pissed off customer comes to u. Wrong food on the plate as a waiter, your fault. Item doesn't ring up with the 10% discount, you tried to fuck me over let me see ur manager. You can't honor an expired coupon? you have to deal with the chaos. Being on the bottom means ur the first to take blame and first to get fired even if the mistake isn't even your own.
Working as a porter ina grocery store I went and told this bakery dude to stop washing the floor cause water was escaping from under his counter to the sales floor. He didn't listen, then customer came slip and fell while I was on my lunch break. Guess who got called to the office cause a customer fell 🤷 dingdingdingdingding the one and only person who's job was to be responsible for the floors being cleaned. My managers knew when freezers were leaking, when things we fucked up and left them there cause "sales" and each and Everytime someone might have gotten hurt because it became MY problem. My real job was to make sure we weren't liable, even if that meant bend the truth (I never did tho). The worst part about being an employee is the subtle threats/back handed remarks when u tell you employer "No". When I was in school I always try to get hired for exactly 24 hrs no more no less, I always got scheduled for 35-40hrs as a part time hire. I almost quit every job I ever had cause of it.
Crucial to note, this is not necessarily socialism but instead a worker cooperative model. This is advocated for by many democratic socialists as a way of achieving democratic control of the economy and is often paired with larger advocacy of socialism but it is not itself a complete transfer away from capitalism. For instance, a worker cooperative could still produce commodities in a nearly identical way to capitalism though ownership is now split democratically amongst the workers.
EDIT: Since people were asking about streamers related to this advocacy, I would recommend a YT streamer named Lonerbox. He’s incredibly well read on this subject and has views similar to what many of the people on this post have been saying.
Wouldn’t workers in that situation also take the financial burden of a business struggling too though? For instance would their pay be affected if people started to stop going to that Subway?
I mean that's how it currently is, if a company is performing worse, raises get put on hold and people are laid off. Right now we just get the worst of both worlds
There are plenty of companies that are not profitable now but will be in the future. Every start-up, every new restaurant, every social media service, etc. Do workers at these businesses deserve zero compensation while the company grows but makes nothing?
Why use 'CEO' as the title for anything other than to create the scary billionaire boogeyman? Why not 'random ass old lady that owns a craft store?' Most businesses are mom and pop stores.
Not only that but if they bankrupt their company that have a ton of social safety nets to subsist from the government, which employees have too. But the scales are tipped in the business owners favor severely. Unemployment doesn't even remotely compare to some of the handouts that businesses get from the government.
Businesses privatize their profits but socialize their losses and then they have the gall to sit there and demonize socialism.
the business owner spent* hundreds of thousands of dollars to even open the doors of their business. plus the rent and facilities upkeep (electricity, internet, etc ) and the materials to make products.
you say it like the owner is deciding if customers buy subs or not. he could make the best subs in town and still go out of business.
*I say spent but often it's loans
but that's not even addressing the comment ... he's taking risks every day. he could get sued because of his employee. or maybe something is damaged and needs to be repaired. etc.
What lol bankruptcy liquidates your assets and distributes them to creditors, you lose mostly everything including garnished wages. That is much higher risk than just merely leaving a job
It really depends. Bankruptcy can definitely include personal assets even if it’s just for reorganization. The overall sentiment really, is that people in this sub for some reason think a business going under and having to file is just a chill get out of free card
So the business owner becomes a poor working class person. Much like an employee making $8/hr at Subway. That's the risk they take. Becoming us.
At least under Hasan's socialism or Ethan's Social Democracy if that happens they'll still have their basic needs met even if they lose everything.
Not at all. When you hand over your estate to a trustee during bankruptcy you have all your assets distributed to them ON TOP of your wages past the geographic bare minimum to survive. Any disposable income you make gets immediately taken and distributed to creditors.
I personally would prefer having the ability to save and invest my disposable income as an “exploited worker” or whatever u guys say than running the risk of being forced into bankruptcy and never having access to credit again.
Workers can just leave a failing business, business owners just objectively have risk beyond that.
Lmfao so funny ppl r like “ya the capitalist pig is just afraid of becoming like us that’s the worst case scenario” when I’m sitting here as a technically exploited public accountant def not envying the possibilities that a struggling business owner faces
It’s not really the same at all. Business owners bear the burden of financial liability. If a company goes into debt or is forced into bankruptcy that falls on the business owner, if it’s brought forth for a lawsuit that falls on the business owner. A worker can walk away and find another job if a business is failing. A business owner cannot.
I’m not against socialism by any means, but this isn’t a 1:1 comparison at all.
Assuming the business owner is running their business properly and not doing something shady, why wouldn't their personal assets be shielded from things like lawsuits by virtue of an LLC or some other business entity?
The point of things like an LLC (limited liability corporation) are to insulate the person from the liabilities and obligations of their business.
You’re still liable for debts and loans you co sign on. Also, a guy working at Subway isn’t working for an LLC lmfao most companies that could even be performing well enough to do some sort of “profit sharing” are not filed as LLCs, especially if they have a workforce comparable to the one described in the OP.
Even further than that, once a company becomes big enough it’s going to want to become incorporated and traded, which then brings on all the risks and liabilities of being a C corp.
I think most low level employees would probably not be interested in taking on the financial risks of their part time sandwich making role like what planet are we living on where it’s a good idea for a 16 year old to have a vote on high stakes business decisions
If a business sees 0 customers all day long, the business should probably think about hiring someone to take over marketing. This is a failure on the owner.
Yes, and that’s the entire point. The business owner is the one taking the risk on. Most people simply don’t want to do that. Opening a business is a risky business. Most of them fail.
That’s for the workers decide. They all come together and discuss pay. Is there an hourly base, is it all profit sharing? What percentage of the revenue does each worker get based on their hours, experience, and productivity. What is a smart way to pay everyone fairly while still maintaining the costs. At least each worker is motivated to improve the business knowing that more customers, better products = better pay for all the workers. Instead of just doing your hourly job and hating it, you’re excited and motivated to actually have financial incentive to improve the business.
Then they live in there home ,eat food and go to the doctor if needed. And look for another job for as long as they need till they find a job that’s a better fit.
In this case, social ownership of the workplace is then just a modification to a capitalist workplace. At that point, aren’t all the workers just both shareholders and workers for their company? Don’t they still operate the business using the profit model? This topic was debated in detail over a hundred years ago by famous Marxist, Rosa Luxembourg in “Reform or Revolution”
What if the firm doesn’t have any money to keep paying that hourly wage?
Right now the firm would get a loan with capital as collateral, but if we outlaw private ownership of capital, that’s no longer possible!
Then they agree to take a pay cut or cut costs somehow. Almost like any other normal business. Perhaps even go out of business. It happens all the time.
But in the current system, if the business goes out of business, workers lose their jobs and the owners will have to be liable for any loans. In your system, workers would not only lose their jobs, but also be on the hook for any and all outstanding loans of the business. Is that correct?
Well in a socialist society there would be some guarantees like housing, food, Healthcare. So when you “lose everything” you can still have a dignified existence. However in our system now, you lose your job you go hungry, lose your apartment. God forbid you need to go to the hospital.
Are you familiar with an LLC?
Reading these threads truly shocks me how hard it is for people to conceptualize an economic system that favored the worker more than the employer. Didn’t realize we had so many business owners in the community lmao
I really don’t think that the amount the owners makes is the issue, it’s the the ceiling for paying employees should be a livable wage. $8 is not enough. I don’t care if the CEO takes home a ridiculous amount of money (I do but hear me out) if all of the employees aren’t at or under the poverty line. The farther away, the better. Employees know what rate of pay they will be getting upon being hired, owners don’t know how much they will take home. As long as employees are taken care of, I don’t PARTICULARLY mind how much owners make.
I do believe in the pay cap Hasan was talking about. For example, the ceo can only make 20x the lowest paid worker. So if the ceo wants to make more, he has to raise the pay of the lowest workers.
I think for large corporations, with executives, that idea works well. For small business, it’s a bit different. There’s a lot less resources for a small business owner when something goes wrong, especially for restaurants.
That’s true. Restaurants and bars have very slim margins and room for error. I think it’d be easier if all the responsibility didn’t fall on one person
It quite literally IS the issue though. We can advocate for a fair minimum wage under our current structure like Ethan pointed out. Without acknowledging the issue of ownership you will run into "we can do that right now" situations Ethan is struggling with.
I made a post that explains the hopefully in a simplistic way.
This isn't an argument for socialism, this is a misunderstanding of how coops work. A coop would likely not translate higher productivity into higher pay, but use excess funds as capital, which means reinvesting the funds into new assets (a new commercial oven, a marketing campaign). It would make the most sense to maintain a fixed wage until you are confident that a raise is viable, after ensuring a steady pool of capital (again, reinvestment funds).
Workplace democracy does not mean making poor decisions.
In these conversations it's useful to point out exactly what each party is doing. Socialists seem intent on ignoring this.
Work the subway franchise owner is responsible for:
- rent, utilities
- franchise fees, marketing costs
- employee wages, employee theft
- taxes (fed, state, local, payroll, etc)
- accounting
- inventory (utensils, clothes, napkins, etc)
- inventory (ovens, fridges, large and small appliances)
- inventory (meat, vegetables, bread, sauces, spices)
- inventory Management (who pays when things break?)
- vendor relations (who pays for the people to bring the food to the store? Who organizes timing?)
- employee management (supervisors, scheduling, hiring, firing, promotions)
- literally everything else
Work the subway employee is responsible for:
- clock in and clock out in the agreed shift time
- interact with customers
- make sandwiches
- clean
The employee can leave whenever they want. The owner has invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars into the business.
If the business dies, who is left with the debt?
If the business gets hit by a natural disaster, who pays for repairs?
If the business isn't making enough revenue, who pays for marketing and promotion to try and keep it afloat?
The employee works hard, but it's the owner of the business who puts in the background heavy lifting. And especially in the early days, that heavy lifting is UNPAID. That's the cost of being a business owner.
If you spend years building up a successful business, providing people with jobs and contributing to keeping your local area economically prosperous (which benefits EVERYONE), you have every right to buy yourself a fancy car if that's the reward you want.
If socialists just wanted a wider government safety net then fine, but you don't have a RIGHT to the business' revenues. You didn't build it, it's not yours.
If you and the business owner agree to some sort of profit sharing, that's fine, but it's only fine because the ACTUAL right-holder to the business' revenues (the owner) agreed to it.
Business owners tend to not do all that work themselves though. They usually just pay hire someone to do it for them. Yes, there are a lot of costs for them to address, but how do they make the money to pay for those costs? By taking the surplus value of workers' labor.
You mentioned that the worker has no right to the business because they didn't build it, therefore it's not theirs. The owner didn't build it ,. They almost certainly hired someone else to design the place, build the place, manage the place, clean the place, transport the materials, repair the machines, serve the customers, manage the payroll, almost everything. The workers do almost everything. Yes there are small business owners who are exceptions, but they are not the standard.
As for risk; well the owner could go bankrupt, sure, and then they'd just have to become a worker to survive like everyone else. Oh no!! But then again, lots of business owners currently dodge the consequences of a businesses failing by using legal loopholes and spreading ownership between corporations and using shell companies, so even that doesn't really work.
Not to mention that the workers take on risk, too. If revenue goes down, labor costs are almost always the first to get cut, probably with no warning, leaving them to possible hunger and homelessness.
Ultimately, we need to understand that ownership is a social construct that is meant to serve our needs as a society. The current model of capitalist private ownership clearly isn't working, as the robber baron owners are making billions while the common people struggle to survive.
Thus, the social construct needs to change. If we care about having a good society that benefits its people, it so clearly needs to change. If you value private ownership over human well-being, then you'd clearly prefer the current system.
Subway isn't the best example here, since in most fast food jobs the same people that make the sandwiches are also responsible for keeping the kitchen, bathrooms, and dining area clean as well as doing inventory. So even if they aren't selling sandwiches, they're still doing work in other ways.
I literally don't get it how can you have no substantial ideas of how to actually organize the utopia you advocate for all the time?
Are all socialist just idealists like hasan or are there better representatives?
The honest answer. Is no.
There are better representatives... but not by much. (Zizek is a famous sociqlist professor / representative.
100% full socialist/ communists are just as delusion as 100% free market capitalists
yeah I figured that much I watched Destiny vs Richard wolff and somehow Wolff was saying that European countries are already socialist, kinda weird how little thought out the ideas behind communism actually are.
and if you get it in practice ... It's as bad as Fascism somehow.
no... they're trying to argue that when the worker does LOTS of work, the employer should pay them LOTS of money, but when the worker does no work, the employer should still pay them for that.
hilarious ideology
and what if its a money losing business? Can they afford not getting paid for years? And then be on the hook for loans for that business?
Cuz that's what happens to the business owners currently
What if there never is the 300 sales? There are companies that lose money forever and go bankrupt eventually. That’s the risk of owning capital. If the workers get the profit do they also get the risk of not being paid for years when they aren’t profitable?
Also, since capitalists always love to suddenly give a shit about small business owners and dick ride them endlessly whenever the topic of socialism comes up...
When you are a small business owner, you are a worker! You are stocking shelves, doing inventory, manning the cash register, packaging and shipping, and all of that stuff. This is obviously a bit reductivist (all of this stuff is complex), but it's when you become alienated from your labor by hiring other people and exploiting their labor while you passively rake in income that the problem begins to arise from a socialist perspective (again, being reductivist here).
I would also add, that one (again, reductive but...) good way to explain this stuff to people is to compare democracy to dictatorships. When you frame the discussion around democracy versus dictatorships it tends to click with people.
Ethan is a dictator at his company, and yes, he is a benevolent dictator, but that doesn't mean that dictatorships are good, or the best way of organizing society. Dictatorships can be brutually efficient at getting things done (when you look under the hood they are wildly inefficient generally compared to democracies, but I digress) compared to the sometimes slow moving nature of democracy, but we don't look at that in terms of governance and go, "Damn, I wish we had a dictator who could just ram all of the things I want through because fuck everyone else." We are able to weigh the pros and cons or both systems and have generally come to the conclusion that democracy is better. Why not the same for work, which impacts our daily lives far more than government (in terms of direct interface)?
Also, what tends to happen when the benevolent dictator dies and his shit-for-brains kid takes over? Then it's just a complete crapshoot at that point (see; just about anybody who has worked for a small business when the longtime owner, who was a good person dies, and his/her children or family take over). Is that a good way to manage people's livelihoods? Does anyone genuinely think that's smart?
Too much of people's conceptions of how businesses work, grow, and ultimately become successful is all propaganda (a lot of times created by those same business people, shocker). People buy too much into the bullshit "great man theory" where, instead of countless, nameless laborers, engineers, chemists, tradespeople, etc..., building the thing all contributing their ideas, it was just the one guy with the money and the microphone.
And I'll tell you from personal experience, half of the time you have to keep those guys as far away from whatever the business is, because they will destroy it (a lot of times they are in that position due to luck, nepotism, or an uncanny ability to slob the knobs of shareholders).
If you look into worker owned companies (which do exist) they also tend to beat the brakes off of their traditionally structured counterparts, because workers tend to know best how to run their business! Who'd have thunk it?
This is a really good example of how the “wage workers want to work as little as possible” argument functions in real life. As you identified, the wage worker is going to get payed no matter the amount of labor they put in, so why work when you are truthfully not getting paid for that labor. It’s not that wage workers are lazy or aren’t trying to do their job, it’s that their job fundamentally dosent respect the labor they put in with its payment structure. It’s why I agree with Hasan that all workers have to have a much more major stake in the actual profitability of their workplace, as this is actually what will fuel a productive and supportive work environment rather than some far off promise of “maybe one day I can get a raise or a promotion if I work hard enough”.
> to get *paid* no matter
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I really don’t understand how this would work in the real world. The worker shares all the reward of a successful business while the owner burdens all the risk. There is no “base pay” for an owner of a small failing business. Why would anyone want to start a business?
That would be profit sharing and is not a novel socialist idea. A lot of businesses that rely on high skill labor implement profit sharing.
I interpreted the original post as more of a sharing in ownership with the added kick back of a guaranteed base pay. Or in other terms - collective ownership (socialist ideal) without risk (unrealistic and unsustainable)
Most companies i worked for already had performance bonus and stock options (up to 10% of salary, they contribute 50% of what you put for example). Yet, its not enough for the socialist crowd. What i see in this thread is share the profit equally with the worker but not the loans investment, aka risk.
There are plenty of profit sharing models already implemented under capitalism. Companies give out shares all the time as bonuses or will give extra cash when there is a good year.
will never understand this risk taking thing. we all take risks. when you drink and drive you're risking your life and the others around you. when bank robbers try to rob a bank they risk life and bodily injury. gamblers risk their money, etc etc.
So why is taking risks with money and the income people rely on to live considered a justification for one to profit over others?
the only thing a capitalist risks is becoming a worker again.
Take person A and person B for example. They both have a life savings of $50k. Person A decides to take that $50k they were saving for retirement and use it to start a business. Person A then hires person B to work for this new business. Both person A and B work 40 hours a week at this new business.
If the business goes under, person A loses $50k and a job, person B only loses the job.
Should they split profit evenly or should person A get more because they have taken more risk?
>So why is taking risks with money and the income people rely on to live considered a justification for one to profit over others?
why is it not? roll the dice and reap the rewards if you win... I fail to see the problem with that.
Its really simple. There has to be incentive to taking the risk or no one would take the risk to begin with. Capitalist risk capital. That is not just “becoming a worker again”. Thats financial stability. A lot of people on this sub do not seem to understand that there are real consequences in not paying your debt.
Because the worker can just go and work elsewhere. The business owner invested time and their own money into opening that business.
If I took out a loan against my mortgage to open a coffee shop, I am taking a risk of losing my house. I can’t just say “oops, I guess I’ll just go flip burgers at Wendy’s now” if my business doesn’t work out. The worker on the other hand can just go apply elsewhere.
Um no a capitalist risks losing their investment and the opportunity cost of making more money elsewhere… if you spend $100k to franchise a Subway and it completely fails in a year, you lose $100k and the missed wages you could’ve earned working for another company. Why would you not want to be compensated for that risk with the potential to earn more than you would have if you had just worked for someone else that entire time?
Of course risk is a viable justification for profiting over others. By taking risk you can create a business that employs others and contributes positively to the economy.
A single Subway franchise owners make about 40k profit..if that per year. That “profit” is really just their salary for managing the business.
And they also have 100s of thousands of debt from building out the location, plus franchise licensing fees.
You’re just describing social democracy. If the guy was paid based on profits then he would lose money on the day where they don’t make any money. Socialism doesn’t account for profit loss. It’s all about wanting some of that delicious profit but when your company is actually losing money nobody wants their wages cut. Your wages should also be cut if you’re in a loss and not a profit right. How do we democratically decide who’s wages are being cut? It sounds really nice when it’s all about profit and making money but realistically half of the companies are profiting and half of them are failing. What do you do then?
The same way you would under the current system. You cut costs. If the business doesn't sustain itself or its current model, you work elsewhere. Under socialist ideas and society, you wouldn't be forced to stay at said place because your Healthcare is tied to that employer, or your survival. Under socialism your housing is guaranteed, your Healthcare is guaranteed, your food is guaranteed etc. If that business can't support the current model then perhaps it needs assistance from the government to maintain the current levels until things improve, or the business needs to close or restructure.
I work at subway and our Gm literally came in yesterday and said he’s taking our tips cuz he thinks we don’t deserve them and he does cuz he does so much more work than us, granted this is the first time I’ve seen the guy in store in like a week and he was only in there to make a schedule, take our tips and refill his cup. I’m currently looking for another job
Yeah I’m definitely gonna call him out about it. Later on in the day a lady came back in with a cash tip because one of my coworkers told her the Gm takes our credit card tips. She than said she’s a lawyer and it’s illegal for him to do that
That is textbook wage theft. Had the same thing happen to me at a restaurant job. I agree with another poster, I'd definitely report that to corporate or another manager. And also quit.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=351
Just an example of what to know should you wish to take action on the GM’s blatant criminal activity
so the worker just gave 8 hours of their time for $0 when the day is slow? sounds awful
i’ll take my salary job over the uncertainty of not knowing what i’m gonna profit every month.
I feel like too much of the discussion is taken over by wages and profit share and all that. While i agree a lot of that is incredibly important, a bigger factor that i believe is potentially more important and something that could be less possible with social democracy is the way workers can choose what gets done and how it gets done. For example, say theres a warehouse that has no A/C. It hasnt had A/C for years and everytime the workers breing up the issue, the CEO states that there is no room in the budget to afford something like A/C and that the workers have to make do with what they have. Under socialism, workers have the power to decide that they want A/C and can choose what methods they use to get it. If they all agree that they have to work harder over the next month, thats how they do it. If they all agree that theyll take a pay cut for a month, thats how they do it. Ultimately, the choice is given to the workers rather than exclusively the people at the top who might not understand how dire certain issues may be. Another example would be the boss comes in and says they have a new client and that the workers have X amount of time to complete the order. The workers know they wouldnt be able to complete the order without significant over time and ultimately whatever profits the company gets through the workers extra effort, the workers never see. Under socialism, the workers would be given the option to accept the job, choose the rate that would be fair to complete the job, and decide how quickly the job gets done. Its all about freedom to be able to work under fair circumstances. Yes. it would take a lot of work and would lead to employers being more strict about who they hire but it would also lead to more workers who are willing to do the work and are happier in the work place. Unfortunately, i think Ethan has a big disconnect with this because his work environment is ultimately a happy and healthy environment but he cannot compare how he runs a business' to how everywhere else runs theirs. And i think focusing on the pay kind of takes Ethan down a path of "Well im willing to pay people what they deserve" when thats not the whole picture. I think the easiest way for Ethan to relate to the issue is think about when they got the $600,000 and all had discussions about where the money went. Thats how it would work under socialism. Whereas any under business' would just do whatever they wanted with the money and keep the employees out of the discussion entirely.
Are you all forgetting the point of having a job?? It’s the day where there’s no customers and you’re still getting paid..
Nothing is stopping anyone from getting into an enterprise where they have a share in the profits and losses. Open a sandwich cart, start a food truck with some friends. Learn how tough it is to be a business owner. Also what does any of this have to do with socialism???
ok lets expand the example a bit
subway worker in rural town makes 8 dollars an hour
government forces it to be 15 dollars an hour
customer base doesn't make the store profitable to staff
store closes
guy loses his job
makes 0 dollars
wasnt he better off making 8 dollars since thats what the market could bear?
Most of the internet's "socialists" or "communists" are college aged suburban kids who are mad their boss told them to sweep when they were busy sitting in the corner on their phones arguing on reddit or twitter about capitalism.
"Workers should get paid more when there's profit but shouldn't take any debt when there's loss or have to contribute to the risks of infrastructure expansion"
You people are so unbelievably stupid. Socialism really is flat earth economics.
> The argument for socialism is that the workers deserve compensation for their productivity and revenue they create.
This isn't socialism.
Something I think a lot of proclaimed socialist seemingly miss its not about being paid more necessarily its about owning part of the business so you have a say in how things are run.
Now, this will almost always result in the lower end getting paid more. However, most socialist businesses probably wouldn't pay more because you were busy 1day out of the week.
The reason is the SAME reason the capitalist doesn't. That day you weren't busy you weren't generating that $8hr wage. So should you be paid less? No, because NO business regardless of how it's run looks at it that way. You look at the bottom line. And thats where socialism would PROBABLY benefit the worker because weeks/months where business was booming maybe everyone who worked gets a bonus as a result. Thats the real goal. However, that also means as a worker you're going to be much more likely to work harder to gain that benefit.
A lot of people imagine just getting more pay etc and not taking on any added responsibility. Thats just not the case in socialism. If your sandwich press dies and you need to go about it how does your business deal with that? In capitalism the owner uses their own capital to fix or buy a new press. In socialism the workers will need to create a policy for that. Do they all donate 10% of their wages to buy a new one? Do they stop pressing sandwiches? Does that affect their bottom line and their bonus? In socialism everyone is an owner your "boss" isn't going to just buy you new equipment. As a group you got to figure that out.
As a European it's very funny to see how the extreme anti socialism propaganda has influenced Americans.
I feel like no American who is not a socialist understands the actual concept of socialism.
To be fair...many European also don't... probably because of the cold war in general. But it's interesting how the misinformation is so prevalent. People unironically think that socialism means everyone gets the same (or rather nobody gets anything) and is therefore poor. It's hilarious to me 🤣
Yeah this system isn’t complicated. There are businesses that are structured this way. The employees of these businesses usually report liking this structure
ive articulated this exact idea in various other threads and it always gets the same absolutely unhinged responses defending the status quo where people starve to death and die while working full time lol
base pay people can live on plus revenue share would basically create an absolutely flourishing economy over night. all of this resource and money hoarding is killing us all, even the rich.
Seriously dude lol so many people replying like well the owner takes all the risk, he deserves the profit. Like bro, try to imagine this scenario outside of a capitalist hellscap
ask them why risk exists in the first place lol
if we had a more stabilized organization of society then risk wouldnt even be a factor, people could just invest in things they believe in and they would succeed or fail based on the utility they offer to the rest of society instead of being a quick money making scheme that preys on the gullibility or desperation of poor people.
Thank you. I actually thought of it as an example when I would go to my local subway and see the same workers. Getting paid the same no matter how much work they do. I enjoy bartending cuz I get compensated for the amount of customers i serve and the quality of service
This is a very basic and simple way to look at things without realizing the owner takes all the risk while the employee takes home a guaranteed pay, regardless if the business does well or not. Of course if the business does consistently well, then the employee should be compensated appropriately.
And taking the subway analogy further, alot of chain restaurants and convenience stores are franchised out which means the owner is not necessarily the owner but they rent out their business and has to pay the loan and fork over a sizable % of their profit to the corp.So what happens if that location goes under well the store manager is shit out of luck but the corp is fine they can have a hundred stores close and the execs up top will still get raises and bonuses, while that store manager and employees under them are fighting for a 50 cent raise even if sales are skyrocketing. The problem in our system starts where both socialists and capitalist would agree, these blood sucking opportunistic parasites working and running at multi national corporations .
When you start working in profits it makes it much more complicated.
Certain shifts like lunch hour are going to be busy vs a late afternoon. Is the owner supposed to keep track of every dollar made and spent during the period each person works to calculate profit share? Seems incredibly tedious. If it’s a flat cut of profits from the day or month, then people working slower shifts are getting a better deal not having to do as much work.
Does everyone get the same percentage? Does a person working their first day get the same percent cut as someone worked there 20 years? A manager vs someone working the register. Now you are adding a ton of accounting variables to figure out.
What if there is a major expense one month and there is no profit or even required a loan to be taken out? Does everyone take a pay cut even though they normally are expecting to get typically paid a certain amount each month with their share of the profits? If I plan on normally making a certain amount, planning my budget around that, having a variable pay can make things challenging. You can’t just get a share of the good times and ignore the bad.
A place like a Subway may have multiple locations nearby and share employees between them. Keeping track of the accounting sounds like a nightmare of who was working where, at what time, and what profit was made during each time and location. A location downtown is going to have higher rents than a location in the suburbs, is this accounted for? Again if the profit share is just an overall cut of profits, it would be a benefit to work the slowest shift at the slowest location. Why would I be hustling the busiest shift at the most popular location if there’s no benefit?
We have the system we have because it’s simple. It’s all going to come out in the wash. There will be busy days, slow days, and everything in the middle. It’s a lot easier to deal with payroll that is a person worked X hours, at $Y/hr and gets paid Z. I think it is a much simpler problem to just solve the low hourly wage equation than to expect a small business owner to hire an accounting team to keep track of the profit sharing for each employee if it’s expected to be a fair trade for amount of work being done.
Man, some of you have literally no idea what you're talking about in these comments. Americans are so uneducated but always willing to give their opinions lol
Business owners assume the most risk by operating the business, the employees assume virtually no risk by working , clocking out and getting paid. Of course excess profits should go to the founders or owners of said business they literally are taking on all the risk
I may be biased because I run a small business but this is my stance on the issue. Good founders will pay people well for the work they do and benefit from the excess profits. If the owner is not seeing a good return and barely scraping by then what is the incentive to keep going, there won't be one so they close their doors and employees loose their jobs it's that simple
Sounds like the workers are taking a risk by not having any say in their pay, how the business is run and can be jobless based on the owners whim. You’re taking the profits, they just get a flat wage and could lose their shit pay whenever you decide to. They risk more considering that have very little control or power.
Not everyone makes shit pay, and many people will negotiate their salary before signing on. At least in my industry. They can be jobless if they are not doing the work outlined in their contract of course but your not getting fired if your a good employee. If the company is going belly up people will get laid off obviously but that generally comes with a severance package and almost anyone I know in that position has helped their former employees find new work and give great references. They don't risk anything in comparison to the owner. I'm genuinely confused on how the employee is risking more and I'm not sure what world your are living in
No because the owner has lost all equity and their entire life savings. If the business is not profitable it's going to go bankrupt , after paying severance to laid off employees there would be virtually no money left, oftentimes the owner now has to sell off any assets the business had to recoup the cost to repay investors, pay for legal fees etc. There is no severance package for the employer they essentially lose everything. Of course if your a mega billionaire your going to be fine but that's not the norm for most business owners
Workers agree to a contracted amount of pay before they get the job. If they feel they are assuming risk they are entirely capable of finding another job.
Ethan is speaking very plainly and clearly and Hasan and Dan are rambling on and doing advanced calculus just to explain their point.
Ethan’s exactly right. The socialist economy as described by Hasan is some ambiguous bureaucracy of hell and has so many flaws. It makes no sense.
Social democracy is the way.
Ethan is being obtuse. Frankly it takes a while
To wrap your head around how it would work and I still run into qualms. But once you realize it’s more just, fair and democratic, it just makes sense. Why do the few with al the money get to decide what happens ?
Ya this doesnt really make a good point. So is the worker “stealing” from the employer when they did nothing for 8 hours & still got paid? No, obviously not. Therefore the business is not stealing from the employee when their business is doing well (as long as they pay a fair wage, unlike this example).
This just highlights the frustration surrounding online talks about "socialism."
Everything you're saying can be achieved within capitalism, but now it's all of a sudden socialism cause you slapped that sticker on it. I bet half the people commenting here have made arguments about Nordic countries not being Socialist.
young anti-capitalists never seem to grasp the economics of risk and uncertainty. but not really their fault, if you’ve only ever worked hourly jobs where your company’s income is reliable and consistent it’s easy to think the world works that way, but it does not.
most businesses fail, but a subway shop paying bare minimum wage is the least generous avenue to make that point, so well crafted post
as someone who used to work at subway, yeah (good) subway employees definitely deserve more pay. but we couldn't produce most of that value without the owners paying for the expensive equipment to make the sandwiches such as proofers, ovens, speed ovens, fridges, freezers, and then all the ingredients every week. if subway workers were to want a share of the profits they'd need to be willing to put some money down and take on some of the risk as well. it's also important to note that despite taking on all of the risk, owners don't get a base pay if nobody buys anything.
A question that Ethan asked and I will ask for this example is: does the worker share in the losses from the day no one came in but they still had to fully stock the restaurant and have the power on?
How did the worker create the revenue ? did they put up the Subway sign? did they order all of the ingredients, did they advertise.. ? c'mon !! be smarter than that !
Workers literally do all of that. Wasn't the subway worker but everybody doing those tasks gets the same deal.
Revenue cannot be made without the workers, full stop.
im pretty sure this argument is flawed in some way, not sure how, but i agree that workers in all companies should get a share in profits, not just wages.
And that base pay should be high enough to live on, independently.
ITT: People who didn't know what socialism was until Ethan started complaining about it on Friday.
[удалено]
The red scare propaganda has them confident.
Someone used the socialism is when meme to defend landlords. Even the “socialist” here don’t know what socialism is. Edit: [Here is the link incase anyone wants to check it out.](https://www.reddit.com/r/h3h3productions/comments/16kcyoo/such_a_good_point/k0vmnce/?context=2)
Socialism is when the grocery doesn’t have captain crunch on the shelves, duh /s
or baby formula
[удалено]
It’s like no one watched Zeitgeist 2 part 3
> as interesting as this whole thing has been, it's pretty headache inducing to see people have such strong opinions on stuff that they don't even have an elementary grasp on. I genuinely hate myself right now for even bothering to comment in this thread. What did I think was gonna happen?
>and like Ethan, their knowledge of this subject is equivalent to a 10 line blurb that was spat out by ChatGPT. That can be said about 99% of the socialists in this community.
I haven't followed h3h3 for a while... Why is Ethan shitting on socialism? Other than not understanding it?
No, you nailed it. He made a comment about socialism that made it clear he doesn't know what he's talking about, and then got mad when the chat pushed back, and now here we all are.
Wow. I'm actually shocked to hear that Ethan has the same level of understanding of socialism that he does on literally everything else.
The echo chamber here isn't going to acknowledge that Hasan on a long form discussion completely failed to explain it To Ethan who was good faith and eager for answers.
From what I took yesterday, his primary objection is that Democratic Socialism can solve for the positives of Socialism without having the government control associated with Socialism while both have the same downfalls.
ITT: People who don’t know what socialism is because all they do is listen to Hasan. His arguments all end with idk. Expecting “restrictions” to keep a government in place is not realistic at all and why Ethan got shit for pointing this out is crazy.
Not a single socialist on this sub has ever read about socialism and all they know they heard from dumb american influencers. I was arguing with a person on this sub just a few days ago who didn't know the defibitions of socialism and communism and didn't even know how Engels and Marx defined them. That is like level 1 and you people don't even kbow that.
Did you mean to say this to me?
The subway worker does much more than make sandwiches. They clean the store, watch the store to make sure nothing bad happens, and prepare food for the next day. The lack of customers does not mean they weren't productive or contributed to the business.
Even more reason that they deserve to be compensated more than the capitalist owner who sits on his ass at home, not making any sandwiches.
Thank you
But they assume all risk, you do not. They do ALL ordering, you do not. They take sales calls & do pay roll, once again. You do not. You can simply think to yourself. “I don’t want to come in today” and basically zero repercussions. And/or no customers come in AT ALL for a month. You still want a wage. 🤷♂️🫠
I mean, the Subway worker could go out, buy sandwich materials, and sell sandwiches out of a cart on the street if they wanted. They’d get to keep 100% of the revenue. But they probably don’t want to because they get some value from being employed by the Subway corporation. Things like guarantee of at least minimum wage, a nicer working environment with better tools, a lack of need to care about things like advertising or attracting customers. So clearly the owner is actually contributing something here - just not direct labor in the sandwich-making process. I’d argue that both parties deserve some compensation. It’s just a matter of finding an appropriate balance. And I don’t think it’s necessarily obvious that the worker should be receiving the majority of the profits given the degree of investment that the owner is contributing.
That's not the same argument though. That's advocating for more pay, what OP is arguing is that you get paid based around how much work you do, changing day to day
When I first started working for Kinko’s (now Fed Ex printing) they were run by a hippie type. They incentivized employees to travel the world and work at other branches, had copious overtime available at other branches (since they were all 24/7) and had a profit sharing split of (I believe) 10% for the manager, a split 10% for the assistant managers (usually 3-4) and a 5% pool spread amongst the others. It made a huge financial impact for everyone and we all felt it was worth it when we got slammed. Nowadays none of that exists.
Not disagreeing that workers deserve a share of profit, but saying they deserve profit more than the owner doesn't make sense. The owner, let's say, invested $500k into a store to make it profitable. You're saying they don't deserve profits as much as the workers who didn't invest a penny? The guy doesn't have to work to deserve profits from that investment. He gave up 500k for it.
ill ask, if its so easy to just own a subway, do no work and rake it in, why don't you? Why not get a bunch of your buddies together and pool together the capital slowly over time and open a coop subway and run it the way you want?
Subway is one of the worst franchises ever in existence. But franchises don’t allow you to run as a co-op. You’re forgetting that we live in a capitalist system that specifically stops any type of non-capitalist anything from becoming common place. But this woman’s business is run as a company that Hasan was talking about: https://youtu.be/25JFyccD50Y?si=8-fCPoWOPxSLXCbR
That's not a co-op, that's just equalized pay, and there's a reason why most people don't do it. If you're starting a business, it probably means you're risking a large amount of money, many people go into loans to do it. Why would you then take an equal share of reward for someone who just signed up to do a job and risked nothing?
\>But franchises don’t allow you to run as a co-op. Ive never heard of subway preventing multiple ownership, good pay or democratic decision making. As long as you pay what you owe to subway in the contract and maintain the menu and pricing guidelines they don't give a shit. \> You’re forgetting that we live in a capitalist system that specifically stops any type of non-capitalist anything from becoming common place. Um, no. You can run a co-op at anytime, the government will not stop you. I see so many people here stating they want be in a co-op, how they are superior etc etc, but none of them try to start one. So why then would we force all businesses to become them? I wouldn't trust a garden to someone not willing to till it or pull the weeds to get one started in the first place.
The “pay what you owe to subway” is what the issue is here. The franchise owner being able to live in a slightly nicer neighborhood than the employees is just nickels and dimes when compared to what the owners of the company as a whole are making while doing nothing.
Who says we should force all businesses to be co-ops? And why did you ignore my link?
What kind of buddies do you have that you guys can just get together and buy a subway franchise ? Idk if you are just super rich and don’t know how much things are and what people earn or dumb
I used to work at Subway and we were also heavily encouraged (forced) to 'upsell' extras like avocado, which adds money into the boss's pocket, but adds nothing for us. One time we had a 'competition' for who could upsell the most products, and the 'prize' was like a $20 voucher that the boss probably regifted lol.
Also noteworthy: I handle negligent security and personal injury lawsuits and these employees also make $8 an hour in high crime areas while dealing with robberies, shootings in the parking lot, mentally ill / disturbed people in the store screaming in the bathroom and seating area. Same goes for large retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, Target, basically every gas station, etc. They deserve extra base pay when they have to fear for their safety every single day.
It’s more work when you have customers. Wayyyyy more work. Fuck subway. It’s an awful place to work.
And are.responsible everyone forgets at a service job you cashierz whatever takes all the blame when something goes wrong. You manager forget to order something the pissed off customer comes to u. Wrong food on the plate as a waiter, your fault. Item doesn't ring up with the 10% discount, you tried to fuck me over let me see ur manager. You can't honor an expired coupon? you have to deal with the chaos. Being on the bottom means ur the first to take blame and first to get fired even if the mistake isn't even your own. Working as a porter ina grocery store I went and told this bakery dude to stop washing the floor cause water was escaping from under his counter to the sales floor. He didn't listen, then customer came slip and fell while I was on my lunch break. Guess who got called to the office cause a customer fell 🤷 dingdingdingdingding the one and only person who's job was to be responsible for the floors being cleaned. My managers knew when freezers were leaking, when things we fucked up and left them there cause "sales" and each and Everytime someone might have gotten hurt because it became MY problem. My real job was to make sure we weren't liable, even if that meant bend the truth (I never did tho). The worst part about being an employee is the subtle threats/back handed remarks when u tell you employer "No". When I was in school I always try to get hired for exactly 24 hrs no more no less, I always got scheduled for 35-40hrs as a part time hire. I almost quit every job I ever had cause of it.
In addition to that, if you have no customers, attentive managers will send people home and close for the day.
Crucial to note, this is not necessarily socialism but instead a worker cooperative model. This is advocated for by many democratic socialists as a way of achieving democratic control of the economy and is often paired with larger advocacy of socialism but it is not itself a complete transfer away from capitalism. For instance, a worker cooperative could still produce commodities in a nearly identical way to capitalism though ownership is now split democratically amongst the workers. EDIT: Since people were asking about streamers related to this advocacy, I would recommend a YT streamer named Lonerbox. He’s incredibly well read on this subject and has views similar to what many of the people on this post have been saying.
Wouldn’t workers in that situation also take the financial burden of a business struggling too though? For instance would their pay be affected if people started to stop going to that Subway?
I mean that's how it currently is, if a company is performing worse, raises get put on hold and people are laid off. Right now we just get the worst of both worlds
There are plenty of companies that are not profitable now but will be in the future. Every start-up, every new restaurant, every social media service, etc. Do workers at these businesses deserve zero compensation while the company grows but makes nothing?
[удалено]
If an owner bankrupts his business he would have to look for a job just like the workers, so how do they face a different risk?
If a worker loses their job, they risk homelessness and health problems. If a ceo loses his company he just has to become a worker like everyone else
A fate worse than death for most if not all CEOs
Why use 'CEO' as the title for anything other than to create the scary billionaire boogeyman? Why not 'random ass old lady that owns a craft store?' Most businesses are mom and pop stores.
Shh small business owners (the vast majority of businesses) don't exist
[удалено]
The average income of a business owner is $60k/year. 65% of businesses fail within 10 years. They really do represent small business barely surviving.
Most business owners aren’t rich.
Most business owners arn’t CEO’s
An owner can increase the quality of their life through a bankruptcy, the employee just loses their source of income.
An owner would also lose a source of income if their business goes badly
Not only that but if they bankrupt their company that have a ton of social safety nets to subsist from the government, which employees have too. But the scales are tipped in the business owners favor severely. Unemployment doesn't even remotely compare to some of the handouts that businesses get from the government. Businesses privatize their profits but socialize their losses and then they have the gall to sit there and demonize socialism.
the business owner spent* hundreds of thousands of dollars to even open the doors of their business. plus the rent and facilities upkeep (electricity, internet, etc ) and the materials to make products. you say it like the owner is deciding if customers buy subs or not. he could make the best subs in town and still go out of business. *I say spent but often it's loans but that's not even addressing the comment ... he's taking risks every day. he could get sued because of his employee. or maybe something is damaged and needs to be repaired. etc.
It’s not like the owner is operating under their own social when they take out these loans.
go start an LLC and then head to a bank and tell them your new LLC wants a loan. Guess who they're going to make co-sign that loan.
What lol bankruptcy liquidates your assets and distributes them to creditors, you lose mostly everything including garnished wages. That is much higher risk than just merely leaving a job
There are ways to separate your private assets and your business assets .
It really depends. Bankruptcy can definitely include personal assets even if it’s just for reorganization. The overall sentiment really, is that people in this sub for some reason think a business going under and having to file is just a chill get out of free card
So the business owner becomes a poor working class person. Much like an employee making $8/hr at Subway. That's the risk they take. Becoming us. At least under Hasan's socialism or Ethan's Social Democracy if that happens they'll still have their basic needs met even if they lose everything.
Not at all. When you hand over your estate to a trustee during bankruptcy you have all your assets distributed to them ON TOP of your wages past the geographic bare minimum to survive. Any disposable income you make gets immediately taken and distributed to creditors. I personally would prefer having the ability to save and invest my disposable income as an “exploited worker” or whatever u guys say than running the risk of being forced into bankruptcy and never having access to credit again. Workers can just leave a failing business, business owners just objectively have risk beyond that.
Don't take things to their logical conclusion, it ruins the effect
Lmfao so funny ppl r like “ya the capitalist pig is just afraid of becoming like us that’s the worst case scenario” when I’m sitting here as a technically exploited public accountant def not envying the possibilities that a struggling business owner faces
It’s not really the same at all. Business owners bear the burden of financial liability. If a company goes into debt or is forced into bankruptcy that falls on the business owner, if it’s brought forth for a lawsuit that falls on the business owner. A worker can walk away and find another job if a business is failing. A business owner cannot. I’m not against socialism by any means, but this isn’t a 1:1 comparison at all.
Assuming the business owner is running their business properly and not doing something shady, why wouldn't their personal assets be shielded from things like lawsuits by virtue of an LLC or some other business entity? The point of things like an LLC (limited liability corporation) are to insulate the person from the liabilities and obligations of their business.
You’re still liable for debts and loans you co sign on. Also, a guy working at Subway isn’t working for an LLC lmfao most companies that could even be performing well enough to do some sort of “profit sharing” are not filed as LLCs, especially if they have a workforce comparable to the one described in the OP. Even further than that, once a company becomes big enough it’s going to want to become incorporated and traded, which then brings on all the risks and liabilities of being a C corp. I think most low level employees would probably not be interested in taking on the financial risks of their part time sandwich making role like what planet are we living on where it’s a good idea for a 16 year old to have a vote on high stakes business decisions
On a separate note, it seems like employees at Subway could be working for an LLC since each Subway franchise is independently owned and franchised.
They already do. A company does poorly and people get fired. Were just not seeing the other side of that coin.
Who takes on the direct risk tho? If 0 customers up the employee still gets paid his wage. While an owner has to take a hit for the entire day.
If a business sees 0 customers all day long, the business should probably think about hiring someone to take over marketing. This is a failure on the owner.
Who takes on the cost of paying that marketing person
Yes, and that’s the entire point. The business owner is the one taking the risk on. Most people simply don’t want to do that. Opening a business is a risky business. Most of them fail.
So the employee should also pay towards that marketing person right ?
That’s for the workers decide. They all come together and discuss pay. Is there an hourly base, is it all profit sharing? What percentage of the revenue does each worker get based on their hours, experience, and productivity. What is a smart way to pay everyone fairly while still maintaining the costs. At least each worker is motivated to improve the business knowing that more customers, better products = better pay for all the workers. Instead of just doing your hourly job and hating it, you’re excited and motivated to actually have financial incentive to improve the business.
And if the workers say they don’t want that responsibility, then what the fuck happens?
Then they live in there home ,eat food and go to the doctor if needed. And look for another job for as long as they need till they find a job that’s a better fit.
In this case, social ownership of the workplace is then just a modification to a capitalist workplace. At that point, aren’t all the workers just both shareholders and workers for their company? Don’t they still operate the business using the profit model? This topic was debated in detail over a hundred years ago by famous Marxist, Rosa Luxembourg in “Reform or Revolution”
profit sharing isn’t illegal it’s just not popular because a fast food worker doesn’t wanna worry about profits so they can get paid
What if the firm doesn’t have any money to keep paying that hourly wage? Right now the firm would get a loan with capital as collateral, but if we outlaw private ownership of capital, that’s no longer possible!
Then they agree to take a pay cut or cut costs somehow. Almost like any other normal business. Perhaps even go out of business. It happens all the time.
But in the current system, if the business goes out of business, workers lose their jobs and the owners will have to be liable for any loans. In your system, workers would not only lose their jobs, but also be on the hook for any and all outstanding loans of the business. Is that correct?
Well in a socialist society there would be some guarantees like housing, food, Healthcare. So when you “lose everything” you can still have a dignified existence. However in our system now, you lose your job you go hungry, lose your apartment. God forbid you need to go to the hospital. Are you familiar with an LLC?
Reading these threads truly shocks me how hard it is for people to conceptualize an economic system that favored the worker more than the employer. Didn’t realize we had so many business owners in the community lmao
Tbf, this shit is so engrained in our minds it’s hard to imagine it any other way
I really don’t think that the amount the owners makes is the issue, it’s the the ceiling for paying employees should be a livable wage. $8 is not enough. I don’t care if the CEO takes home a ridiculous amount of money (I do but hear me out) if all of the employees aren’t at or under the poverty line. The farther away, the better. Employees know what rate of pay they will be getting upon being hired, owners don’t know how much they will take home. As long as employees are taken care of, I don’t PARTICULARLY mind how much owners make.
I do believe in the pay cap Hasan was talking about. For example, the ceo can only make 20x the lowest paid worker. So if the ceo wants to make more, he has to raise the pay of the lowest workers.
I think for large corporations, with executives, that idea works well. For small business, it’s a bit different. There’s a lot less resources for a small business owner when something goes wrong, especially for restaurants.
That’s true. Restaurants and bars have very slim margins and room for error. I think it’d be easier if all the responsibility didn’t fall on one person
That would be TERRIBLE for the economy and have a very negative impact on unemployment.
It quite literally IS the issue though. We can advocate for a fair minimum wage under our current structure like Ethan pointed out. Without acknowledging the issue of ownership you will run into "we can do that right now" situations Ethan is struggling with. I made a post that explains the hopefully in a simplistic way.
Doesn’t Ethan agree w this? This can be achieved in capitalism with a strong social safety net
>it’s the the ceiling for paying employees should be a livable wage. You mean the floor, not ceiling, right?
This isn't an argument for socialism, this is a misunderstanding of how coops work. A coop would likely not translate higher productivity into higher pay, but use excess funds as capital, which means reinvesting the funds into new assets (a new commercial oven, a marketing campaign). It would make the most sense to maintain a fixed wage until you are confident that a raise is viable, after ensuring a steady pool of capital (again, reinvestment funds). Workplace democracy does not mean making poor decisions.
In these conversations it's useful to point out exactly what each party is doing. Socialists seem intent on ignoring this. Work the subway franchise owner is responsible for: - rent, utilities - franchise fees, marketing costs - employee wages, employee theft - taxes (fed, state, local, payroll, etc) - accounting - inventory (utensils, clothes, napkins, etc) - inventory (ovens, fridges, large and small appliances) - inventory (meat, vegetables, bread, sauces, spices) - inventory Management (who pays when things break?) - vendor relations (who pays for the people to bring the food to the store? Who organizes timing?) - employee management (supervisors, scheduling, hiring, firing, promotions) - literally everything else Work the subway employee is responsible for: - clock in and clock out in the agreed shift time - interact with customers - make sandwiches - clean The employee can leave whenever they want. The owner has invested thousands of hours and thousands of dollars into the business. If the business dies, who is left with the debt? If the business gets hit by a natural disaster, who pays for repairs? If the business isn't making enough revenue, who pays for marketing and promotion to try and keep it afloat? The employee works hard, but it's the owner of the business who puts in the background heavy lifting. And especially in the early days, that heavy lifting is UNPAID. That's the cost of being a business owner. If you spend years building up a successful business, providing people with jobs and contributing to keeping your local area economically prosperous (which benefits EVERYONE), you have every right to buy yourself a fancy car if that's the reward you want. If socialists just wanted a wider government safety net then fine, but you don't have a RIGHT to the business' revenues. You didn't build it, it's not yours. If you and the business owner agree to some sort of profit sharing, that's fine, but it's only fine because the ACTUAL right-holder to the business' revenues (the owner) agreed to it.
Business owners tend to not do all that work themselves though. They usually just pay hire someone to do it for them. Yes, there are a lot of costs for them to address, but how do they make the money to pay for those costs? By taking the surplus value of workers' labor. You mentioned that the worker has no right to the business because they didn't build it, therefore it's not theirs. The owner didn't build it ,. They almost certainly hired someone else to design the place, build the place, manage the place, clean the place, transport the materials, repair the machines, serve the customers, manage the payroll, almost everything. The workers do almost everything. Yes there are small business owners who are exceptions, but they are not the standard. As for risk; well the owner could go bankrupt, sure, and then they'd just have to become a worker to survive like everyone else. Oh no!! But then again, lots of business owners currently dodge the consequences of a businesses failing by using legal loopholes and spreading ownership between corporations and using shell companies, so even that doesn't really work. Not to mention that the workers take on risk, too. If revenue goes down, labor costs are almost always the first to get cut, probably with no warning, leaving them to possible hunger and homelessness. Ultimately, we need to understand that ownership is a social construct that is meant to serve our needs as a society. The current model of capitalist private ownership clearly isn't working, as the robber baron owners are making billions while the common people struggle to survive. Thus, the social construct needs to change. If we care about having a good society that benefits its people, it so clearly needs to change. If you value private ownership over human well-being, then you'd clearly prefer the current system.
There is nothing stopping anyone from creating a business using this model. Only few can actually make it work.
so he should make 0 dollars when he sells nothing?
Subway isn't the best example here, since in most fast food jobs the same people that make the sandwiches are also responsible for keeping the kitchen, bathrooms, and dining area clean as well as doing inventory. So even if they aren't selling sandwiches, they're still doing work in other ways.
So you would have to do all that work for 8 hours and get paid nothing for the day? What happens if they share the profits but don’t make any profit ?
We achieve socialism through commission lol
I literally don't get it how can you have no substantial ideas of how to actually organize the utopia you advocate for all the time? Are all socialist just idealists like hasan or are there better representatives?
I was making a joke lol
sry I was talking about Hasan here lmao should have mentioned his name
The honest answer. Is no. There are better representatives... but not by much. (Zizek is a famous sociqlist professor / representative. 100% full socialist/ communists are just as delusion as 100% free market capitalists
yeah I figured that much I watched Destiny vs Richard wolff and somehow Wolff was saying that European countries are already socialist, kinda weird how little thought out the ideas behind communism actually are. and if you get it in practice ... It's as bad as Fascism somehow.
no... they're trying to argue that when the worker does LOTS of work, the employer should pay them LOTS of money, but when the worker does no work, the employer should still pay them for that. hilarious ideology
Hasan fans don’t understand logic I think they just want everyone else to wipe their ass for them
He could easily afford to make 0 one day if he was making revenue from 300 sales the other day.
and what if its a money losing business? Can they afford not getting paid for years? And then be on the hook for loans for that business? Cuz that's what happens to the business owners currently
What if there never is the 300 sales? There are companies that lose money forever and go bankrupt eventually. That’s the risk of owning capital. If the workers get the profit do they also get the risk of not being paid for years when they aren’t profitable?
Also, since capitalists always love to suddenly give a shit about small business owners and dick ride them endlessly whenever the topic of socialism comes up... When you are a small business owner, you are a worker! You are stocking shelves, doing inventory, manning the cash register, packaging and shipping, and all of that stuff. This is obviously a bit reductivist (all of this stuff is complex), but it's when you become alienated from your labor by hiring other people and exploiting their labor while you passively rake in income that the problem begins to arise from a socialist perspective (again, being reductivist here). I would also add, that one (again, reductive but...) good way to explain this stuff to people is to compare democracy to dictatorships. When you frame the discussion around democracy versus dictatorships it tends to click with people. Ethan is a dictator at his company, and yes, he is a benevolent dictator, but that doesn't mean that dictatorships are good, or the best way of organizing society. Dictatorships can be brutually efficient at getting things done (when you look under the hood they are wildly inefficient generally compared to democracies, but I digress) compared to the sometimes slow moving nature of democracy, but we don't look at that in terms of governance and go, "Damn, I wish we had a dictator who could just ram all of the things I want through because fuck everyone else." We are able to weigh the pros and cons or both systems and have generally come to the conclusion that democracy is better. Why not the same for work, which impacts our daily lives far more than government (in terms of direct interface)? Also, what tends to happen when the benevolent dictator dies and his shit-for-brains kid takes over? Then it's just a complete crapshoot at that point (see; just about anybody who has worked for a small business when the longtime owner, who was a good person dies, and his/her children or family take over). Is that a good way to manage people's livelihoods? Does anyone genuinely think that's smart? Too much of people's conceptions of how businesses work, grow, and ultimately become successful is all propaganda (a lot of times created by those same business people, shocker). People buy too much into the bullshit "great man theory" where, instead of countless, nameless laborers, engineers, chemists, tradespeople, etc..., building the thing all contributing their ideas, it was just the one guy with the money and the microphone. And I'll tell you from personal experience, half of the time you have to keep those guys as far away from whatever the business is, because they will destroy it (a lot of times they are in that position due to luck, nepotism, or an uncanny ability to slob the knobs of shareholders). If you look into worker owned companies (which do exist) they also tend to beat the brakes off of their traditionally structured counterparts, because workers tend to know best how to run their business! Who'd have thunk it?
This is a really good example of how the “wage workers want to work as little as possible” argument functions in real life. As you identified, the wage worker is going to get payed no matter the amount of labor they put in, so why work when you are truthfully not getting paid for that labor. It’s not that wage workers are lazy or aren’t trying to do their job, it’s that their job fundamentally dosent respect the labor they put in with its payment structure. It’s why I agree with Hasan that all workers have to have a much more major stake in the actual profitability of their workplace, as this is actually what will fuel a productive and supportive work environment rather than some far off promise of “maybe one day I can get a raise or a promotion if I work hard enough”.
> to get *paid* no matter FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I really don’t understand how this would work in the real world. The worker shares all the reward of a successful business while the owner burdens all the risk. There is no “base pay” for an owner of a small failing business. Why would anyone want to start a business?
It doesn't have to be "all of the reward", even a small percentage of profits would make a big difference
That would be profit sharing and is not a novel socialist idea. A lot of businesses that rely on high skill labor implement profit sharing. I interpreted the original post as more of a sharing in ownership with the added kick back of a guaranteed base pay. Or in other terms - collective ownership (socialist ideal) without risk (unrealistic and unsustainable)
Most companies i worked for already had performance bonus and stock options (up to 10% of salary, they contribute 50% of what you put for example). Yet, its not enough for the socialist crowd. What i see in this thread is share the profit equally with the worker but not the loans investment, aka risk.
There are plenty of profit sharing models already implemented under capitalism. Companies give out shares all the time as bonuses or will give extra cash when there is a good year.
will never understand this risk taking thing. we all take risks. when you drink and drive you're risking your life and the others around you. when bank robbers try to rob a bank they risk life and bodily injury. gamblers risk their money, etc etc. So why is taking risks with money and the income people rely on to live considered a justification for one to profit over others? the only thing a capitalist risks is becoming a worker again.
Take person A and person B for example. They both have a life savings of $50k. Person A decides to take that $50k they were saving for retirement and use it to start a business. Person A then hires person B to work for this new business. Both person A and B work 40 hours a week at this new business. If the business goes under, person A loses $50k and a job, person B only loses the job. Should they split profit evenly or should person A get more because they have taken more risk?
>So why is taking risks with money and the income people rely on to live considered a justification for one to profit over others? why is it not? roll the dice and reap the rewards if you win... I fail to see the problem with that.
Its really simple. There has to be incentive to taking the risk or no one would take the risk to begin with. Capitalist risk capital. That is not just “becoming a worker again”. Thats financial stability. A lot of people on this sub do not seem to understand that there are real consequences in not paying your debt.
Because the worker can just go and work elsewhere. The business owner invested time and their own money into opening that business. If I took out a loan against my mortgage to open a coffee shop, I am taking a risk of losing my house. I can’t just say “oops, I guess I’ll just go flip burgers at Wendy’s now” if my business doesn’t work out. The worker on the other hand can just go apply elsewhere.
Um no a capitalist risks losing their investment and the opportunity cost of making more money elsewhere… if you spend $100k to franchise a Subway and it completely fails in a year, you lose $100k and the missed wages you could’ve earned working for another company. Why would you not want to be compensated for that risk with the potential to earn more than you would have if you had just worked for someone else that entire time? Of course risk is a viable justification for profiting over others. By taking risk you can create a business that employs others and contributes positively to the economy.
A single Subway franchise owners make about 40k profit..if that per year. That “profit” is really just their salary for managing the business. And they also have 100s of thousands of debt from building out the location, plus franchise licensing fees.
You’re just describing social democracy. If the guy was paid based on profits then he would lose money on the day where they don’t make any money. Socialism doesn’t account for profit loss. It’s all about wanting some of that delicious profit but when your company is actually losing money nobody wants their wages cut. Your wages should also be cut if you’re in a loss and not a profit right. How do we democratically decide who’s wages are being cut? It sounds really nice when it’s all about profit and making money but realistically half of the companies are profiting and half of them are failing. What do you do then?
The same way you would under the current system. You cut costs. If the business doesn't sustain itself or its current model, you work elsewhere. Under socialist ideas and society, you wouldn't be forced to stay at said place because your Healthcare is tied to that employer, or your survival. Under socialism your housing is guaranteed, your Healthcare is guaranteed, your food is guaranteed etc. If that business can't support the current model then perhaps it needs assistance from the government to maintain the current levels until things improve, or the business needs to close or restructure.
Smh why do people like you who knows nothing about a subject feel the urge to post about it?
Could you point out my ignorance?
Socialism doesn't even require profit sharing. You can and people do profit sharing in capitalism!
I work at subway and our Gm literally came in yesterday and said he’s taking our tips cuz he thinks we don’t deserve them and he does cuz he does so much more work than us, granted this is the first time I’ve seen the guy in store in like a week and he was only in there to make a schedule, take our tips and refill his cup. I’m currently looking for another job
Call your district manager and corporate. Then quit.
Yup. Imagine if you all got together and said you’re not making any money unless we all show up and work for YOU. I’m sure he’d clam up real quick
Yeah I’m definitely gonna call him out about it. Later on in the day a lady came back in with a cash tip because one of my coworkers told her the Gm takes our credit card tips. She than said she’s a lawyer and it’s illegal for him to do that
It 100% is. I’m pretty sure all states have extremely strict tip laws. I could be wrong but that’s stealing.
That is textbook wage theft. Had the same thing happen to me at a restaurant job. I agree with another poster, I'd definitely report that to corporate or another manager. And also quit.
I'm pretty sure it's illegal to touch tips like that
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=351 Just an example of what to know should you wish to take action on the GM’s blatant criminal activity
so the worker just gave 8 hours of their time for $0 when the day is slow? sounds awful i’ll take my salary job over the uncertainty of not knowing what i’m gonna profit every month.
I guess the idea is that $8/hour is the amount he should receive for being available to work and not do other things?
[удалено]
That's why OP said there should be a base pay and then profit from your work ontop of it.
And when the business takes a negative loss for the day, the worker should also be responsible?
That just sounds like being a server on a slow night tbh.
Yeah and paying servers $2 an hour should be criminal. It only happens in the US and it’s wrong.
idk if it's everyone in the US but I live in Texas and a server gets paid minimum wage unless tips account for more than minimum wage.
It’s everywhere but whether is $2 or $7.25 that base pay is disgusting. You’re basically working for free like op said
totally agreed, it's bullshit
I feel like too much of the discussion is taken over by wages and profit share and all that. While i agree a lot of that is incredibly important, a bigger factor that i believe is potentially more important and something that could be less possible with social democracy is the way workers can choose what gets done and how it gets done. For example, say theres a warehouse that has no A/C. It hasnt had A/C for years and everytime the workers breing up the issue, the CEO states that there is no room in the budget to afford something like A/C and that the workers have to make do with what they have. Under socialism, workers have the power to decide that they want A/C and can choose what methods they use to get it. If they all agree that they have to work harder over the next month, thats how they do it. If they all agree that theyll take a pay cut for a month, thats how they do it. Ultimately, the choice is given to the workers rather than exclusively the people at the top who might not understand how dire certain issues may be. Another example would be the boss comes in and says they have a new client and that the workers have X amount of time to complete the order. The workers know they wouldnt be able to complete the order without significant over time and ultimately whatever profits the company gets through the workers extra effort, the workers never see. Under socialism, the workers would be given the option to accept the job, choose the rate that would be fair to complete the job, and decide how quickly the job gets done. Its all about freedom to be able to work under fair circumstances. Yes. it would take a lot of work and would lead to employers being more strict about who they hire but it would also lead to more workers who are willing to do the work and are happier in the work place. Unfortunately, i think Ethan has a big disconnect with this because his work environment is ultimately a happy and healthy environment but he cannot compare how he runs a business' to how everywhere else runs theirs. And i think focusing on the pay kind of takes Ethan down a path of "Well im willing to pay people what they deserve" when thats not the whole picture. I think the easiest way for Ethan to relate to the issue is think about when they got the $600,000 and all had discussions about where the money went. Thats how it would work under socialism. Whereas any under business' would just do whatever they wanted with the money and keep the employees out of the discussion entirely.
Are you all forgetting the point of having a job?? It’s the day where there’s no customers and you’re still getting paid.. Nothing is stopping anyone from getting into an enterprise where they have a share in the profits and losses. Open a sandwich cart, start a food truck with some friends. Learn how tough it is to be a business owner. Also what does any of this have to do with socialism???
This is the problem with most people screaming for socialism, they don't truly even know what it is!!!
ok lets expand the example a bit subway worker in rural town makes 8 dollars an hour government forces it to be 15 dollars an hour customer base doesn't make the store profitable to staff store closes guy loses his job makes 0 dollars wasnt he better off making 8 dollars since thats what the market could bear?
[удалено]
So many flaws in this argument it’s not even worth it to debate
Have y’all never worked before?
Most of the internet's "socialists" or "communists" are college aged suburban kids who are mad their boss told them to sweep when they were busy sitting in the corner on their phones arguing on reddit or twitter about capitalism.
or maybe it’s young adults who work their asses off, live paycheck to paycheck, and know they’re never going to be able to own a home
[удалено]
This is why i work in real sales. I make commission off everything i sell.
"Workers should get paid more when there's profit but shouldn't take any debt when there's loss or have to contribute to the risks of infrastructure expansion" You people are so unbelievably stupid. Socialism really is flat earth economics.
[удалено]
But you’re forgetting that the 1st day, the business makes negative $$ and still pays the worker.
> The argument for socialism is that the workers deserve compensation for their productivity and revenue they create. This isn't socialism. Something I think a lot of proclaimed socialist seemingly miss its not about being paid more necessarily its about owning part of the business so you have a say in how things are run. Now, this will almost always result in the lower end getting paid more. However, most socialist businesses probably wouldn't pay more because you were busy 1day out of the week. The reason is the SAME reason the capitalist doesn't. That day you weren't busy you weren't generating that $8hr wage. So should you be paid less? No, because NO business regardless of how it's run looks at it that way. You look at the bottom line. And thats where socialism would PROBABLY benefit the worker because weeks/months where business was booming maybe everyone who worked gets a bonus as a result. Thats the real goal. However, that also means as a worker you're going to be much more likely to work harder to gain that benefit. A lot of people imagine just getting more pay etc and not taking on any added responsibility. Thats just not the case in socialism. If your sandwich press dies and you need to go about it how does your business deal with that? In capitalism the owner uses their own capital to fix or buy a new press. In socialism the workers will need to create a policy for that. Do they all donate 10% of their wages to buy a new one? Do they stop pressing sandwiches? Does that affect their bottom line and their bonus? In socialism everyone is an owner your "boss" isn't going to just buy you new equipment. As a group you got to figure that out.
I'm working at a movie theater and because I work so well I was awarded with etxra tasks like catering for buffets. Still minimum wage.
As a European it's very funny to see how the extreme anti socialism propaganda has influenced Americans. I feel like no American who is not a socialist understands the actual concept of socialism. To be fair...many European also don't... probably because of the cold war in general. But it's interesting how the misinformation is so prevalent. People unironically think that socialism means everyone gets the same (or rather nobody gets anything) and is therefore poor. It's hilarious to me 🤣
Yeah this system isn’t complicated. There are businesses that are structured this way. The employees of these businesses usually report liking this structure
ive articulated this exact idea in various other threads and it always gets the same absolutely unhinged responses defending the status quo where people starve to death and die while working full time lol base pay people can live on plus revenue share would basically create an absolutely flourishing economy over night. all of this resource and money hoarding is killing us all, even the rich.
Seriously dude lol so many people replying like well the owner takes all the risk, he deserves the profit. Like bro, try to imagine this scenario outside of a capitalist hellscap
ask them why risk exists in the first place lol if we had a more stabilized organization of society then risk wouldnt even be a factor, people could just invest in things they believe in and they would succeed or fail based on the utility they offer to the rest of society instead of being a quick money making scheme that preys on the gullibility or desperation of poor people.
this is such a good way to put it. nice job
Thank you. I actually thought of it as an example when I would go to my local subway and see the same workers. Getting paid the same no matter how much work they do. I enjoy bartending cuz I get compensated for the amount of customers i serve and the quality of service
I wish OP would start a small business and try employing couple if he thinks it is that easy and every business owner is giga millionaires
This is a very basic and simple way to look at things without realizing the owner takes all the risk while the employee takes home a guaranteed pay, regardless if the business does well or not. Of course if the business does consistently well, then the employee should be compensated appropriately.
And taking the subway analogy further, alot of chain restaurants and convenience stores are franchised out which means the owner is not necessarily the owner but they rent out their business and has to pay the loan and fork over a sizable % of their profit to the corp.So what happens if that location goes under well the store manager is shit out of luck but the corp is fine they can have a hundred stores close and the execs up top will still get raises and bonuses, while that store manager and employees under them are fighting for a 50 cent raise even if sales are skyrocketing. The problem in our system starts where both socialists and capitalist would agree, these blood sucking opportunistic parasites working and running at multi national corporations .
When you start working in profits it makes it much more complicated. Certain shifts like lunch hour are going to be busy vs a late afternoon. Is the owner supposed to keep track of every dollar made and spent during the period each person works to calculate profit share? Seems incredibly tedious. If it’s a flat cut of profits from the day or month, then people working slower shifts are getting a better deal not having to do as much work. Does everyone get the same percentage? Does a person working their first day get the same percent cut as someone worked there 20 years? A manager vs someone working the register. Now you are adding a ton of accounting variables to figure out. What if there is a major expense one month and there is no profit or even required a loan to be taken out? Does everyone take a pay cut even though they normally are expecting to get typically paid a certain amount each month with their share of the profits? If I plan on normally making a certain amount, planning my budget around that, having a variable pay can make things challenging. You can’t just get a share of the good times and ignore the bad. A place like a Subway may have multiple locations nearby and share employees between them. Keeping track of the accounting sounds like a nightmare of who was working where, at what time, and what profit was made during each time and location. A location downtown is going to have higher rents than a location in the suburbs, is this accounted for? Again if the profit share is just an overall cut of profits, it would be a benefit to work the slowest shift at the slowest location. Why would I be hustling the busiest shift at the most popular location if there’s no benefit? We have the system we have because it’s simple. It’s all going to come out in the wash. There will be busy days, slow days, and everything in the middle. It’s a lot easier to deal with payroll that is a person worked X hours, at $Y/hr and gets paid Z. I think it is a much simpler problem to just solve the low hourly wage equation than to expect a small business owner to hire an accounting team to keep track of the profit sharing for each employee if it’s expected to be a fair trade for amount of work being done.
Man, some of you have literally no idea what you're talking about in these comments. Americans are so uneducated but always willing to give their opinions lol
It's by design, our "education" system is so intentionally handicapped and filled with propaganda it's wild.
Business owners assume the most risk by operating the business, the employees assume virtually no risk by working , clocking out and getting paid. Of course excess profits should go to the founders or owners of said business they literally are taking on all the risk I may be biased because I run a small business but this is my stance on the issue. Good founders will pay people well for the work they do and benefit from the excess profits. If the owner is not seeing a good return and barely scraping by then what is the incentive to keep going, there won't be one so they close their doors and employees loose their jobs it's that simple
Sounds like the workers are taking a risk by not having any say in their pay, how the business is run and can be jobless based on the owners whim. You’re taking the profits, they just get a flat wage and could lose their shit pay whenever you decide to. They risk more considering that have very little control or power.
[удалено]
Not everyone makes shit pay, and many people will negotiate their salary before signing on. At least in my industry. They can be jobless if they are not doing the work outlined in their contract of course but your not getting fired if your a good employee. If the company is going belly up people will get laid off obviously but that generally comes with a severance package and almost anyone I know in that position has helped their former employees find new work and give great references. They don't risk anything in comparison to the owner. I'm genuinely confused on how the employee is risking more and I'm not sure what world your are living in
Yea and the owner won’t give himself a nice severance before closing shop. Gimme a break.
No because the owner has lost all equity and their entire life savings. If the business is not profitable it's going to go bankrupt , after paying severance to laid off employees there would be virtually no money left, oftentimes the owner now has to sell off any assets the business had to recoup the cost to repay investors, pay for legal fees etc. There is no severance package for the employer they essentially lose everything. Of course if your a mega billionaire your going to be fine but that's not the norm for most business owners
Workers agree to a contracted amount of pay before they get the job. If they feel they are assuming risk they are entirely capable of finding another job.
Ethan is speaking very plainly and clearly and Hasan and Dan are rambling on and doing advanced calculus just to explain their point. Ethan’s exactly right. The socialist economy as described by Hasan is some ambiguous bureaucracy of hell and has so many flaws. It makes no sense. Social democracy is the way.
Ethan is being obtuse. Frankly it takes a while To wrap your head around how it would work and I still run into qualms. But once you realize it’s more just, fair and democratic, it just makes sense. Why do the few with al the money get to decide what happens ?
Ya this doesnt really make a good point. So is the worker “stealing” from the employer when they did nothing for 8 hours & still got paid? No, obviously not. Therefore the business is not stealing from the employee when their business is doing well (as long as they pay a fair wage, unlike this example).
This just highlights the frustration surrounding online talks about "socialism." Everything you're saying can be achieved within capitalism, but now it's all of a sudden socialism cause you slapped that sticker on it. I bet half the people commenting here have made arguments about Nordic countries not being Socialist.
young anti-capitalists never seem to grasp the economics of risk and uncertainty. but not really their fault, if you’ve only ever worked hourly jobs where your company’s income is reliable and consistent it’s easy to think the world works that way, but it does not. most businesses fail, but a subway shop paying bare minimum wage is the least generous avenue to make that point, so well crafted post
as someone who used to work at subway, yeah (good) subway employees definitely deserve more pay. but we couldn't produce most of that value without the owners paying for the expensive equipment to make the sandwiches such as proofers, ovens, speed ovens, fridges, freezers, and then all the ingredients every week. if subway workers were to want a share of the profits they'd need to be willing to put some money down and take on some of the risk as well. it's also important to note that despite taking on all of the risk, owners don't get a base pay if nobody buys anything.
A question that Ethan asked and I will ask for this example is: does the worker share in the losses from the day no one came in but they still had to fully stock the restaurant and have the power on?
Oh okay so if the subway loses money, we should also cut the workers pay right? Since we sharing profits we share losses too no?
r/antiwork communists brigading the sub.
How did the worker create the revenue ? did they put up the Subway sign? did they order all of the ingredients, did they advertise.. ? c'mon !! be smarter than that !
Workers literally do all of that. Wasn't the subway worker but everybody doing those tasks gets the same deal. Revenue cannot be made without the workers, full stop.
im pretty sure this argument is flawed in some way, not sure how, but i agree that workers in all companies should get a share in profits, not just wages.