Idealism 0, laws of economics 1.
Discussion
Was communism about paying people the same amount of money each week/month/year/? Pure communism dispenses with money entirely, which I believe no communist regime has done yet. You take what you need and give what you can - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
A market economy with regulations to address market failures still seems the best way to improve to improve the lives of the population as a whole.
Obviously, some will will get a lot richer. And some won't be as rich as they'd like.
There are many different strands between communism, socialismz Marxism etc...not sur which one the company owner was trying.
Obviously, some will will get a lot richer. And some won't be as rich as they'd like.
There are many different strands between communism, socialismz Marxism etc...not sur which one the company owner was trying.
rodericb said:
Was communism about paying people the same amount of money each week/month/year/? Pure communism dispenses with money entirely, which I believe no communist regime has done yet. You take what you need and give what you can - From each according to his ability, to each according to his need
Indeed. And the 'socialism on the way to communism' type of systems didn't/don't even claim that the way to do it is to literally pay everyone the same flat wage regardless of what their role is. There's a notion that communism/socialism is all about creating a society of identical people with identical material circumstances, but (right back to Marx and Engels) the theorists behind it are clear on why true equality of outcome is not only undesirable but impossible. Socialism is about sharing the means of economic production. There's no evidence that there was any of that going on here.
I know the OP wasn't getting at this - they're right that it's an interesting experiment based on flawed idealism butting up against reality. It does demonstrate 'The Happy Prince problem' nicely, though - you can't introduce equality on an individual basis within an unequal system. Otherwise you end up (as in the article) overpaying your cleaners and underpaying your sales execs in comparison to the going rate. And those sales execs come from a culture and industry where individual attainment is key and a lot of people put a lot of store in the size of their pay cheque as a measure of self worth and status, so of course a single (lower than average) wage isn't going to go down well.
If you were to introduce a system-wide measure like, say, a legal maximum top:bottom pay ratio within all organisations, that would be a different story.
Re a max and a min this has also been tried in sports where wage bills are capped at a team level in the US. What you end up with is say your salaray at one team and at another your salary and a ferrari and a free house.
The truth is the best system we have is one of labour mobility. Its not perfect but it does allow you choices. Example a lot of FS firms have pay bands so you are a grade E say and your pay is 35 to 55k so once you hit 55k your stuck. I know of people who have stayed at a firm for 7 years with no change in pay. The employer has no incentive to pay you more if you accept that. So mobility allows you to up and leave. If you are worth more you will find a role that pays more.
That to me seems the best system we have found so far, its not perfect but it does allow you options.
The truth is the best system we have is one of labour mobility. Its not perfect but it does allow you choices. Example a lot of FS firms have pay bands so you are a grade E say and your pay is 35 to 55k so once you hit 55k your stuck. I know of people who have stayed at a firm for 7 years with no change in pay. The employer has no incentive to pay you more if you accept that. So mobility allows you to up and leave. If you are worth more you will find a role that pays more.
That to me seems the best system we have found so far, its not perfect but it does allow you options.
Good for him. Can't blame him for trying something, especially as it came from a good place and to try to do right by people. And when it didn't work, he did something about it, even if it meant standing up and saying "I got that wrong".
OK, the problems were fairly obvious once the company started growng, but he gave it a go.
I've got neither the balls nor the talent to start up a business, so I'm not in a position to criticise anyone.
OK, the problems were fairly obvious once the company started growng, but he gave it a go.
I've got neither the balls nor the talent to start up a business, so I'm not in a position to criticise anyone.
crofty1984 said:
Good for him. Can't blame him for trying something, especially as it came from a good place and to try to do right by people. And when it didn't work, he did something about it, even if it meant standing up and saying "I got that wrong".
OK, the problems were fairly obvious once the company started growng, but he gave it a go.
I've got neither the balls nor the talent to start up a business, so I'm not in a position to criticise anyone.
Except that it should have been blindingly obvious what what going to happen right from the start.OK, the problems were fairly obvious once the company started growng, but he gave it a go.
I've got neither the balls nor the talent to start up a business, so I'm not in a position to criticise anyone.
Electro1980 said:
bristolracer said:
Communism didnt work first time round, I see no reason why it would now.
This isn’t communism.John Lewis and CoOp seem to be doing OK and they are much closer to communist companies, being worker owned, than someone trying to pay everyone the same.
Many professional service organization use partnerships successfully.
I love these new companies that try these experiments and we see what happens.
There was a similar one I read about a while ago where the employees got to decide the salaries of the boss.
It’s well worth coming in and asking why things are done that way and trying something different but like the bloke said sometimes they’re like that because they work.
"Sometimes, traditional practices are there for a reason."
There was a similar one I read about a while ago where the employees got to decide the salaries of the boss.
It’s well worth coming in and asking why things are done that way and trying something different but like the bloke said sometimes they’re like that because they work.
"Sometimes, traditional practices are there for a reason."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff