It's a meme

  • Devouring@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren't important. This idea that people can't be fired is just ridiculous.

    Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I never said that people couldn't get fired.

      The incompetent relative example seems to be a problem with nepotism

      • Devouring@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. It's a nepotism problem. I'm just drawing the picture that removing money from the picture basically makes relationships the new currency. It's basically how life used to be a long time ago, and those who were closer to the leader got better jobs with perks. People will always find a way to benefit and will centralize power eventually. I can't say much about hypotheticals and whether your coop will fix that, but in my opinion, history suggests that we'll just end up with a new system of power.

        • J Lou@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I never said anything about removing money.

          What you are talking about is called social capital accumulation, which is a problem in any system.

          A justification for worker coops is the moral principle of assigning legal responsibility to the de facto responsible party. In an employer-employee relationship, the employer receives 100% of the legal responsibility despite the employee being inextricably co-responsible. This violates the aforementioned principle

          • Devouring@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, I don't think you can use written laws to fight human plans to centralize power. I guess our current system is proof of that. People will always find a way to centralize that power to benefit themselves and their groups.

            But anyway. I guess we're getting into a dead end. This is becoming opinion stuff at this point, whether this will work. I'll have to think more about this stuff.