Owning Production
Darwin has vaguely described a position regarding the way markets should work. Echoing a Marxists position, he argues that if
Everyone actually owns the things they make before selling them [that] would probably lead to a more satisfying work experience.
It’s very difficult to understand what the term ‘own’ means when applied to the bulk of the jobs needed by a country. For a sub group of jobs it makes sense that several classes of workers own that which they produce. But for a larger portion of the population its makes no sense to talk about ‘owning’ what they produce. Therefore, it’s unclear what benefit this would confer to those workers.
For example, when I was working at Omaha Steaks I had one task and one task only. My job, for nine hours a day, was to move 2 and a half ounce cuts of steak from a metal pan and place it into a plastic tray. In what sense could my job satisfaction have gone up by me owning the act of transferring meat from one location to another. Another example was when I was working in a distribution plant and moved pallets of shelving material from the dock onto shelves using a 2 ton forklift. How does someone like Darwin arrange this system so that I ‘own’ the placement of pallets onto shelves?
The answer seems rather obvious to me. You don’t. There are countless tasks one can’t own. In fact, I would argue that the vast majority of work in this world can’t simply be made so that the laborer ‘owns’ it. Now you can make an argument that the worker owns his labor, and indeed we see this, the most salient example being unions, however, the bulk of the work that needs to be done in no meaningful sense of the word can be ‘owned’.
In history we see the merchant and artisan guilds in which one can say these workers owned the workshops that produced their wares. But they were a small group of people that catered to the wealthy and politically connected. Remember that the painter’s workshop was primarily financed by the Church which,thanks to tithes could support artist workshops. The vast majority of the people lacked the means to acquire those things produced by these guilds.
Furthermore, even during that time most people did not ‘own’ what they produced. If they were serfs, then they simply didn’t own anything they produced. It was only at the discretion of the Lord that the peasant was allowed to take home a portion of the fruits of their labor.
When Henry Ford developed mass production he simply transformed one system of production into another system of production. Most of the workers needed for mass production came from the country, in which they worked other’s land. In this sense they went form not owning the corn they were growing to now owning the cars they were producing.
While mass production failed to bring ownership to those that produce things, it definitely decreased the value of those things that were produced. Mass production can not remedy the problem that most people can’t own what they produce but allows peope to afford what they produce. But not only that, they can afford much much more than what they produce. In sum, mass production fails to find ways to enable people to ‘own’ what they produce but reduces the value of those products such that workers can actually own the things they produce and more.
At the end of the day, work has to be done, and the vast majority of its unpleasant. Designing the system so that people ‘own’ what they produce makes no sense for many jobs, but also works against capitalism’s efficiency. Personally I dismiss this silly naïve idea that the panacea to unpleasant work is ‘ownership’. Instead I aim for the professions left in this system that require unique and novel problem solving. Even if I fail to land one of these jobs, I prefer to be a cog in the current system with a higher standard of living than owning the act of placing chunks of steak in plastic trays. Whatever the hell that means.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:26 pm
excuse me while I nit-pick. The most salient example of a worker owning his own labor is wages (not unions). He trades his labor for what he can earn from it. When working with a union, things get a lot more hairy. First of all, some states don’t allow workers to work in certain professions without joining a union, in which case he doesn’t fully own his labor, but rather the majority of the workers owns his labor.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Ok, i’m going to suppose that darwin meant that you, placing steaks on a tray, have just as much ownership of those steaks as your manager, as the CEO, etc. At least, this is what I’ve gleaned from previous conversations with him. That being said, it wouldn’t work, a la supply and demand. No one would have the motivation to become a CEO because they wouldn’t get anything more than the idiot who moved steaks. Now, suppose that, instead, everyone owned the rights to their labor, and sold that labor to whomever they chose, as long as both sides agreed on a price. That would be capitalism. What’s the problem with that again?
May 24th, 2007 at 8:28 am
First of all, while I am saying that ownership will increase job satisfaction, you seem to be assuming that it will come at teh cost of efficientcy. In fact, I am making the opposite claim - if your income is actually dependant on your efficiency (as it would be if you owned the things you produce), wouldn’t you work harder than if your income is NOT dependant on your efficiency (as it is in a corporate model where you get payed the same wage no matter what as long as you don’t get fired)? I do think ownership would lead to greater efficiency.
As for how ‘ownership’ applies to non-production jobs, yes, obviously I’m not only talking about literally owning physical products - what I’m really talking about is employee-owned companies. You’re are a smart guy - while you were working at moving steaks around, didn’t you ever have any idea that might have increased the efficieny of that workplace? Well, if your income was dependant solely on the profit of the company -ie, if you, along with your other workers, owned the company - you’d have a real motive for suggesting that change and trying to create that increase in efficieny.
Also to nitpick (not really, since it’s an important point), you say:
“But not only that, they can afford much much more than what they produce. In sum, mass production fails to find ways to enable people to ‘own’ what they produce but reduces the value of those products such that workers can actually own the things they produce and more. ”
What are you actually talking about here- this seems to be logically impossible. If each worker on average produces X, and they each can afford to buy X+Y, where does Y come from… who produces it? In a closed system, production and consumption have to be the same. Now, maybe you’re saying we can afford more imported goods from other countries than what we actually produce, but be careful there… alot of the cheap=ass goods we import are not from real capitalisms.
May 24th, 2007 at 8:38 am
boose - Two problems with that, that I care about right now.
1. Job satisfaction - If every adult in the country spends half their waking life at work, then I actually do care quite a bit about job satisfaction. Now, in the situation where you are selling your labor, your job is not whatever you have been hired to do - your job is to get as much money for yourlabor as you can with as little unpleaseantness as possible, and in the commission of that, you have to do some bullshit someone has hired you to do. I really think that most people in most jobs would be happier at work if they owned an equal share of the company.
2. As I’ve said, it also means you have no inherent incentive to do well or be efficient at the job you’ve been hired for. Again, your actual job, if you’re selling your labor, is to get as much money as you can for as little work/the most pleasant work as possible. Steve has often said that people will be efficient and hard-working because that’s how they get promotions, but I think that just looking around you will prove that’s not true- you can be equally or more successful by goofing off and looking busy when the boss walks by, by kissing ass and going out drinking with your superiors, etc. Furthermore, our current corporate structure just isn’t built to reward hard work in the way Steve argues - a factory floor worker isn’t going to be advanced to management no matter how hard he works, because they only hire people with business BA’s or Masters into management, and they hire from outside instead of promoting from within. I, personally, have no possibility of advancement in my current job- I can only advance by leaving for grad school, and despite goofing off alot and not being efficient, I impressed my superiors enough to get the recommendation I needed to do that. Steve’s been working damn hard for years and hasn’t gotten that step up - the system doesn’t work. I don’t know for sure whether or not my system would work, but I think it has a good shot of being better than the current corporate model.
May 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
According to your position, enabling all workers ownership of the company, which is still unclear in meaning, will not only make the company more efficient, but will also increase job satisfaction across the board. With two substantial benefits and no drawbacks one would be inclined to think this model would dominant in a free market system. Why would anyone favor the standard corporate model when they could make both consumer and employee happy with a shared ownership model? To what do you attribute the failure of this model in being the dominant organizational system for business across the all free markets systems?
May 24th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Steve:
“According to your position, enabling all workers ownership of the company, which is still unclear in meaning, will not only make the company more efficient, but will also increase job satisfaction across the board. ”
Me:
“I really think that most people in most jobs would be happier at work if they owned an equal share of the company.”
” I don’t know for sure whether or not my system would work, but I think it has a good shot of being better than the current corporate model. ”
I never make absolutist, across-the-board arguments - that’s your hobby. I think that we’d see some improvements, varying from person-to-person and company-to-company, and there mightbe some tradeoffs and a difficult time of adaptation, but I think on the whole it would work out.
As to why it isn’t working out, it’s for exactly the reasons you (and Marx, by the way) said - no small group of workers in the past have had the capital neccessary to start a large business that can compete with giant corporations funded by (in the past) royalty or (today) uber-rich boards of directors. Furthermore, the story of every capitalism is a background of serfdom, or some other situation where a small number of people have all the capital and power; it just takes a damn long time for enough capital and expertise to shuffle down into the common man for something like htis to be feasible.
Your question is seriously like someone in the Dark Ages saying ‘if Capitalism is so great, why isn’t it the dominating economic model across the world?’
May 24th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Amid your collection of sentences that characterize your position you missed the one I based my question on:
So are you advancing the position that ownership will increase job satisfaction and efficiency or are you not advancing that position?
If you’re not then what is the purpose of bringing up the ownership model of organization almost exclusively when you are criticizing the ‘corporate’ model.
If you are advancing that position that I have some questions for you:
According to your position, enabling all workers ownership of the company, which is still unclear in meaning, will not only make the company more efficient, but will also increase job satisfaction on the whole. With two substantial benefits and no drawbacks one would be inclined to think this model would dominant in a free market system. Why would anyone favor the standard corporate model when they could make both consumer and employee happy with a shared ownership model? To what do you attribute the failure of this model in being the dominant organizational system for business across the all free markets systems?
May 29th, 2007 at 9:31 am
That’s convenient, I have some answers for you:
As to why it isn’t working out, it’s for exactly the reasons you (and Marx, by the way) said - no small group of workers in the past have had the capital neccessary to start a large business that can compete with giant corporations funded by (in the past) royalty or (today) uber-rich boards of directors. Furthermore, the story of every capitalism is a background of serfdom, or some other situation where a small number of people have all the capital and power; it just takes a damn long time for enough capital and expertise to shuffle down into the common man for something like htis to be feasible.
Your question is seriously like someone in the Dark Ages saying ‘if Capitalism is so great, why isn’t it the dominating economic model across the world?’
May 29th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Just to be clear: you are advancing the position that ownership organizational systems are more efficient and beneficial to consumers than corporate organizational systems? Do state this directly please so that I have it on record.
You go on to state that the reason it has not reached prominence is because small groups lack the starting capital necessary to start a business.
Perhaps you could explain to me the founders of Microsoft, Apple, or Google. They all seem to have started out with very little capital and were able to transform into a massive corporate organized entity.
Furthermore, perhaps you can explain to me the point of a venture capitalist firm if the only people who get invested are the ones who are already wealthy.