You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed.
You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now!
But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?
The labor class is free to form collectives and cooperatives. There's no law against it.
Bezos started Amazon with $300,000. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for workers to raise that kind of money, after all, $300,000 to buy a house is considered cheap.
On the other hand, the history of businesses being confiscated and handed over to the workers has not been a successful one.
Some startups are worker-owned through stock grants, but those grants are rarely evenly distributed. The founders hold the majority as long as they can.
It is a good practice for companies to include stock as part of the pay package. It encourages alignment of the company with the employees. Very, very successful companies follow this model, such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc.
It seems to indicate that if Amazon was employee-owned today, the first thing they would vote to do is convert future hires into non-owners, because that's what the founders did when it was actually employee-owned.
I mean, it probably depends on the type of employee. I assume folks doing deliveries or working in warehouses aren't getting stock packages. I wonder if the admin or accounting folks do.
> But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?
I wonder how many people who repeat things like this know that Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon. About 2/3rds of Amazon is owned by institutional investors, much of which is in turn owned by individuals in their 401ks and other retirement plans. So "the people" own more of Amazon than Jeff Bezos already.
If you're implying that the government should confiscate Jeff Bezos' personal ownership stake in the business he created and redistribute it to other people, that's a very different topic. It's in the realm of fantasy, not reality, so I don't consider it very interesting. At minimum, it should be noted that if the government gets into the business of confiscating shares from people, the value of those shares will plummet as investors move their money into safer investments, so it wouldn't be a simple numerical wealth transfer from Bezos to others.
Regardless, there's nothing stopping people from getting together and starting an employee-owned collective company that enters the market. They can compete in the market and try to hire away talent from the other corporations.
Yes, Bezos only owns ~10%, but I think it's fair to say that, of Amazon employees and owners, he has more than 10% of the power within Amazon.
If warehouse workers want better conditions they have to solve a national coordination problem without getting crushed. If Bezos wants their working conditions to be more efficient he has to write a memo.
Edit: to connect this back to ownership. This disparity is directly responsible for determining whether profits pay fair wages or got to Bezos and the other owners.
Given the low pay and harsh conditions of the people who create the wealth of Amazon, I do not see confiscating it from the current owners as a Bad Thing
There are probably better means to achieve better ends, but the status quo is very fucking rotten
If you're swallowing bugs while cycling that means you're probably mouth breathing. It's pretty challenging to convert to strict nasal breathing, but it's worth it and a side benefit is bugs aren't a big deal if you're wearing something on your eyes.
In case people thought mouthbreather is just an insult, it can cause serious medical problems and even change the structure of your face. There are videos about it on the internet, with dramatic before and after photos (in both directions).
I cycle at the higher end of my aerobic threshold to get around and my bike is single speed so I have to go anaerobic on hills. Do you cycle at a more leisurely pace or do you maintain constant nose breathing even during strenuous exercise? If the latter, I would probably caution you of the health effects of that too.
I'm definitely curious if you have references to negative health effects of nasal breathing. I've seen quite a bit on the positives, even with strenuous exercise. I maintain nasal breathing when riding fast, during kettlebell workouts, and sandbag workouts.
Or it may just mean he is cycling fast. It is only when cycling st a relatively comfortable pace that you can get enough oxygen through only your nose.
You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed. You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now!
But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?