this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
119 points (94.1% liked)

Technology

58092 readers
3429 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Boeing says it can’t make money with fixed-price contracts::"Rest assured we haven't signed any fixed-price development contracts, nor intend to."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You are assuming two things:

  • Each worker is paid the same
  • The number of workers in the company affects the market for their products

In a small company, none of this is true.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This is a proof of theory, the same way capitalist economists show what options and game theory incentives exist. Its quite literally a textbook example. What I said about co ops is not a new claim, and im not gonna research the exact financials of the mondragon co op to make an example on lemmy lmfao. Also nowhere does my post suggest each worker is paid the same, thats not what surplus means. Nowhere do I assume the number of workers effects the market either, it effects production. Wow you really went out of your way to misread that.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also that each worker supplies the same surplus. While forecasters will assume this, this is rarely the case in engineering.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All I said was 10 workers produce 100 dollars of surplus. Nowhere does that imply each produced 10 dollars. Only that their voting power commands 10 dollars of surplus. Read it again.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So you have a system that doesn't reward increased productivity between members, or even provides some metrics for measurement. You can have a successful project with non-performing members.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Co ops directly reward increased production, increased production would lead to increased surplus, and the surplus is democratically allocated, weather that's bonuses or investments, raises even if they see the increase is surplus as permanent. All of thats extra money that everyone gets to decide what to do with. Thats more incentive than ive seen more than most workers in top down systems get.

[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't see that getting implemented in an engineering company.

There are employee owned companies out there given the economics of creating an engineering company, but I don't see a co-op format scaling. At most, it is going to be employees choosing leadership.

[–] agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Google Mondragon corporation and you can see a co op scaling up over history. You dont have to imagine, it's already happened and you can read about it.

Edit: and here's all their industrial co-ops under the one large Mondragon co-op. https://www.mondragon-corporation.com/en/we-do#negocioIndustria