@jlou What happens if the owner of the factory decides that they can get more rent for a farm and decides to tear down the factory? The coop has no ownership, so they have no say. They’ll also presumably lack the skills for this new means of production. In fact, if the labor is at all specialized, the owner has every incentive to negotiate that wage down due to the precarity of the coop and the expense of relocating or retraining workers. This kind of situation is why ownership matters.
@0bvious
- 1 Followers
- 17 Following
- 11 Posts
@dave I’d recommend checking out your local CWA (Communications Workers of America) chapter here: https://cwa-union.org/members/find-your-local
It’s possible that what you do doesn’t quite fit, but with tags like those I’m fairly confident.
@matthannon This sentiment is one I’ve wrestled with for quite some time myself. I think there’s a fundamental flaw in the premise, however - It assumes that our votes are the ones being sought. Considering the divide between public sentiment and government actions, it might cause one to consider whether some people can “afford more votes” as it were than you and I.
@hanscees @gdeihl @axnxcamr @marcolo @breadandcircuses Per the study, the best case is 15M tons/yr of SO2 in the most populous latitudes on earth. The more likely scenarios are 20-25M tons/yr. That’s like 40% of Asia’s output.
1. If production is fuel based, then the CO2:SO2 ratios are in the range of 100-300:1, right? How much carbon does this mitigation create? Are there other methods that work at scale?
2. Wouldn’t removing SO2 caps on existing fuel burning accomplish the same task?
@helianthropy I want to be clear that I’m not trying to call you out with my message. I think I understand your intention and I’m absolutely being pedantic. However, I’m also concerned that the label attempts to soften the blow of the abuses we are committing. It could be seen tolerating those abuses by making them less directly related to our activities. I propose calling this an abuse in the hope that it’ll make people think about their role.
2/2
@helianthropy I’m curious about the “(not abuse)” assertion in your message. This outcome results from actions that a few people knowingly committed in the name of acquiring wealth and power. Its been supported by the majority of people being ignorant of, tolerant of, or disempowered to change course from the status quo set by those in power. Given all of that, I wonder what else we could similarly label as not abuse.
1/2
@Pat The hashtags and text were either shared uncritically or intentionally. It’s the internet, so that’s impossible to know.
This lady is reminiscent of something many of us have or will experience - someone who is not particularly science-literate but still sees a problem. Its something we’ll be dealing with more and more as a society. This entire piece is disparaging to someone who sees the problems you do but doesn’t have the education to say them as nicely as you want to hear. Be better
@Pat It turns out differences in air pressure and temperature, like those experienced in the lead up to a thunderstorm, have refractive differences in how sound travels (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43154773). This person may sound silly explaining the phenomenon, but I wouldn’t be so quick to throw around the term “whackadoodle” just because it sounds odd at first glance. That only serves to ostracize people who are generally stmpathetic to the cause.
@jlou Thanks for clarifying the legal portion. I understand what you mean now.
The reason that I still contend that your version of a coop is only a labor union is because they don’t have any tangible ownership in this rental agreement. If they are to use the factory to produce a product, and their net earnings are compensated after the owner accounts for their profits, then that’s a negotiated wage. This coop has only succeeded in collective bargaining, not ownership.
@jlou If the coop doesn’t own the factory, aren’t they just a labor union? One of the fundamentals of a worker coop is that the workers own the business. If all of the productive capacity of that business is property of the factory owner, then what do those workers own?
Also, I’m intrigued by your distinction of the firm from the corporation. Can you expand on what you mean by “legally securing the right to the role of the firm for labor while leaving private property and markets intact.”?