Sure there could be state-owned ovens but it may not be the best quality stuff there and yeah you might have to wait in line.
If you worked at a bakery though, the oven would be yours. Whoever worked the oven would own what the oven produces, so any money gained from selling that bread would be split up between the workers who produced it.
That's the idea at least.
For the third option, well that's something we should be thinking about, rather than engaging in thought-terminating exercises.
Another option is for one person to start up a company, with a plan in place to transition to a co-op. At first they take on the risk and get the reward, with the government helping them out because they are a small business, and with time they pass over the risk and the reward to the rest of their employers and become another worker-owner. They can maintain a higher pay-rate for a while, until their initial investment is returned and then some.
There are dozens of different models which have been very successful in many different countries.
The already, large enough and growing "entitlement" segment in this country, doesn't have much of a desire to help themselves, let alone get together to do something to help *others* in their same situation.
That is the problem, with all the government subsidies given to them, where is the incentive needed to get off their lazy backsides and try to better themselves, huh?
Would be nice if your ideas could take hold, but we BOTH know that, that hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming to fruition.
Sad, but true!
A man bakes bread at his house for his family. Everybody who he knows has sampled his creations and tells him he should open a bakery. One day, he decides, Why not?
He takes his family savings, spends it on rent and purchase of a building and some ovens and goes into business. His business struggles for 5 long years where he nearly loses his dear wife and family due to the stresses of financial hardship. After 5 years, his business begins to thrive. He replaces his family savings and begins to prosper. He is getting on in years and he cannot keep up with the orders for his wonderful bread and cakes so he decides to finally hire somebody to assist him and the missus.
His new employee and he settle on mutually agreed upon compensation and the baker begins training the man on how to mix and bake his popular bread and treats. The new employee takes his wages and is able to actually buy things for his family like bread and even pay for those pesky little details of life like shelter and clothing, taxes and fees.
He continues this pattern for 15 years and grows his business to 100 employees who also pay taxes and feed their families, paying rent, food, clothing, taxes and fees. All are happy until one day all those previously unemployed workers decide that they should be compensated more for their labor. After all, WE make the products, not those evil owners.
They decide that they either get paid more for the product THEY produce, surely as much as the fat cat evil owners, or they will refuse to bake the bread.
Not wishing to create hardship for the employees, their families, or the business, the old baker gives them all a raise. Of course, the bread now costs more but that is somebody elses problem, the bakery employees got their raises.
This pattern repeats itself until one day, nearing financial collapse, the baker reasons with his wife;
Either we close the doors or find another bunch of employees willing to trade their time to work for much more reasonable wages. I cannot sell the bread for a fair and market supported price, pay all the demands of the workers, and satisfy the burden of governmental oppression at the present time.
Honey, we risked all, struggled for years, produced a superior product for a fair price, supported 100 families and their way of life, and now we can retire and live or twilight years in a modest home. Why don't you close the doors?
He agonizes over this but realizes she is right. He closes the doors.
100 families previously employed at the bakery are now being supported at sustenance levels by governmental forced charity, aka, welfare, instead of by the fruit of their labor. The support comes from those lucky enough to be working for other "evil, rich, entrepreneurs" who took the risk of starting their own businesses years before. Of course the benevolent government has to raise taxes again to support another 100 families and their hungry children. Those new costs are being passed along to those same charitable folks in the form of higher cost products, but the pattern has been going on now for years. As a matter of fact, the pattern has been repeating itself coincidentally as long as unionized shops took over and convinced its previously unemployed locals that they should make higher than market value wages for their unskilled labor.
Last edited by AmPat; 11-21-2011 at 09:20 AM.
THe people who are going into the mine and doing the hard work, who are managing the project, who are doing the work every step of the way, would all divide up the diamond wealth. It's not necessary for everyone to get paid the same amount, but everyone should have a say in determining that. If the miners want to give a little more to the engineers or managers, that's great and it makes sense, but it should be the decision of the workers.
I think that makes more sense than people going in and working their asses off in a life-threatening area, and having no say about their work, and everything they mine going to whoever owns the mineral rights.
propaganda will tell you all the time "nothing else is possible except the way we do it now", and it's easy to just accept that, but even a few minutes of research will show you that other things can be done, actually are done, and are done very well.
it's not a matter of "would this work" or "could it work", it does work, coops exist already.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|