Smalll Businesses

More than that, the people who no longer produce due to greater efficiencies in production are still consumers. The economy depends on both producers and consumers. Our current economic predicament is due to poor numbers of consumers which causes production to decrease, which creates more layoffs, more people that become non-producers who then consume less (no frill purchases, no pleasure purchases, no unnecessary consumerism) -- just the opposite of what is needed.So instead a rational system would be to cut back worker hours so that all workers could continue productive work, and worker pay scales that reflect the increased production efficiencies -- if a worker can now produce twice as much as before, then their hourly pay rate should be double what it was before, his work hours can be reduced to half what it was before, they get more leisure time to engage in consuming and the economy improves.That would be social capitalism - where the workers have rights to a fair and just share of the increase in productivity.In fact having a part of society being only consumers, where they are provided with a minimum annual salary provided by government programs would be a better allocation of government funding than bailing out banks and providing big tax cuts to rich people and corporations (not=people) and subsidies like oil industry subsidies. Indeed, that would be feudal capitalism. (where resistance is feudal? )Other countries manage to do it ...

You assume that the employer is not making any money previously, whereas the truth is that they already are taking a share, and they would continue to take that same share proportional to the increased productivity: double productivity, double share.This is the same as doubling the workforce to double production. Instead of hogging all the proceeds you would be sharing the proceeds with the people that have actually done the production for you and enabled you to afford the robot.Think of employees as shareholders that invest sweat equity in your corporation -- are they less entitled to a share of the profits compared to shareholders that only invest money? Are they less committed to the success of your company than the money shareholders? Is sharing the profits with sweat equity shareholders any worse than sharing profits with money shareholders? By making good product at a good price, by having a stable and committed workforce that wants the company to succeed, and which is a valuable asset that shows the company is stable and will continue to grow. For love of a strong economy, where a strong workforce can afford to consume more than the bare necessities and thus contribute to the demand for your product. You'll have to decide that for yourself, just as you will have to decide whether you honor and respect workers as valuable participants in your company or treat them like dime a dozen slaves to your money machine.

One way that will happen again and again is workers going on strike and holding walkouts -- as we have seen with wallmart and fast-food franchises. This will force companies to provide better pay and conditions, as they have done historically.Another way is where enlightened companies embrace better working conditions for their workers -- vis-a-vis Costco paying $15/hr to Wallmart's $7/hr ... and making more profits.Then there are worker owned companies that hire managers to do the work of the CEO with an annual salary but the workers make the final decisions -- they would decide whether or not to purchase the labor saving machine and what wages people would have as a result of the increased profits. Run by democratic methods rather than feudal methods.

Perhaps the problem is not just pay, but respect as fellow human beings and treatment that doesn't border on slavery where one side makes all the rules.My experience shows that flex time is more productive and the workers are happier.

How do you know that it is the owner's money rather than the money that has been raised as a result of the productivity of the workers?If it is money that the owner has taken out of the profits of production then he has no real right to call that his.Just because an owner takes control of the profits doesn't mean they have earned those profits. What I think is even more apropos is a profit sharing model: everyone (including the owner) takes a base salary -- say a living wage (and if you can't pay everyone a living wage then question if you should remain in business?) for a single person ... and then the profits are shared based on respective inputs (money and sweat).One has to wonder in this day and age why the business model is still built on a feudal system rather than a democratic system.With a worker owned company there is no question on who earns the profits eh?
Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods :: inspirational. What do you think they would decide if you put it to a vote on who got how much of the profits?You may think of yourself as a benevolent boss (dictator), but do your employees see it that way?Who makes the rules?In a free, just and equitable society who should make the rules? Don't the founding principles -- justice, equality, freedom -- that gave us the constitution also apply to the way businesses are run?

When their productivity has lead to the profits that allow the purchase of the robot then they have helped to purchase that robot: they invested the sweat that produced the profits. Curiously, I think it is one of the duties of government to make people behave in a manner that benefits society as a whole.This is, of course, WHY we have regulations (EPA etc). Minimum wage as a living wage would benefit the consumption of all products.Providing a safety net -- healthcare, social security, welfare, disability, unemployement, etc etc etc -- ensures that the consumer portion of the economy remains healthy.When the productivity of the whole economy has increased to the point where not everybody can be employed, then consideration should be given to a minimum annual "dividend" from the economy.If everyone were given $50/day as a "consumer dividend" then people would have more control over deciding how much to work and how much to spend enjoying the benefits of the social-economic system.We've tried trickle down. It was a total unequivocal abject failure for social justice. So let's try trickle UP and see what happens.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

No that is the vacuum up system.What I am talking about is bailing out the poor, who will spend the money immediately thus putting more money into circulation and boosting the economy.If we consider that social security, minimum wage, unemployment, welfare, etc, are good programs, why not simplify the system and combine them all into one universal unified social safety net.Provide every tax filing adult with an "economic dividend" which is earned by participating in the US economy -- consuming if not producing -- equal to a living wage for one person.De-link benefits (unemployment, healthcare, social security, etc) from the paycheck. Provide universal healthcare that takes care of special needs and disabilities.Now new employers starting small companies don't have to pay all those benefits, and they don't have to pay a minimum wage -- they just need to pay what it takes to attract good workers who want to live on more than the minimum living wage, workers who are committed to work rather than desperate for living and providing for family.And you tax those that benefit most from the system in a progressive tax so that they pay a more just and fair amount than now. You can even simplify the tax code.Then we can work on more socially just systems of arrangements for companies ...