Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Equalizing ownership has been proven to work on a small scale. Many co-ops and communes are very effective based on that principle. It tends to fail when the tragedy of the commons overwhelms the social need to contribute. So doesn’t work on a mass scale.
A maximum income of 70k in an environment where business profit and investment income didn’t count might lead to extensive entrepreneurship and many more small companies. If 70k was the maximum you could earn as an employee but you could earn far more as an owner taking profit you would increase the benefit of business ownership and have a severe penalty for being an employee.
So it would be difficult to keep employees without giving ownership stakes in companies.
|
You're making the assumption that employees have some say in the matter. What you're saying about the benefits of ownership are true today, and the vast majority of people remain employees because they have to. They have to work. They also likely don't have enough capital or the proper skills to start their own businesses.
A flat salary would, in many cases, cement the divide between owner and worker, as workers would be limited in their ability to economically climb out of their situation. You'd be doing the opposite of a minimum wage and implementing a wage ceiling.
As for shared ownership working in small communities, the main issue with that is that small communities cannot really exist without access to greater infrastructure, unless they also want to suffer the consequences of disaster: drought, famine, disease, etc...For example, it's great to have a hippy commune and grow some crops, as long as you also have the outside support of hospitals, goods, clean water, food, etc...as you require them.