Visions of Shadow and Light

On an email list I frequent there was recently an off-topic discussion about capitalism and its negative effects. One statement really stuck out to me:

"The workers no longer have a stake in what they produce. They no longer ‘own’ it."

While accurate in one sense, this statement implies that in the past typical workers DID have ownership and thus the statement is inaccurate as a whole.

If such a scenario (where workers actually owned what they produced) ever really existed, it predates the industrial revolution, coal mining and so forth. It predates Marx, and predates any modern political or economic system.

Throughout history you can find individuals who had ownership. Ownership of land tilled by peasants. Ownership of ship sailed by conscripts. Ownership of a factory run by (essentially) slave labor. Substitute "individuals" for "government oligarchy", "monarch" or "dictator" and you cover pretty much ever major political system employed over the past few hundred years.

But as far back in time as you care to go, you'd be hard-pressed to find any point in history where the average worker had any real stake in what they produced.

Those areas where a stake was held (primarily craftsmen) in many cases carry forward to today. Very many carpenters, plumbers, etc. are self-employed or at least control their employment more closely than people in manufacturing, service or professional positions. Those who aren’t self-employed have no stake or ownership, they just work for someone who does have ownership.

Another common example people use is the family farm, and its decline over recent decades. It is true that a family typically owns its farm and runs it as a business. The family farm is another example of being self-employed.

The only way to own what you produce is to own the company. Then you can employ people, who won't own crap, to build your stuff. Whether you are self-employed (and thus have a company of one), or employ others (family members or regular workers), the only way to have a stake or ownership is to be the employer.

I do happen to work in one of the select areas that is an exception to this. My peers are almost all self-employed and virtually none of them employ anyone else. All of us ARE our product, or we directly produce our product (training, books, articles, software, etc). And in all the world there are perhaps 500 of us.

(500 is a guesstimate based on the speaking/author circuit I am part of and extrapolating out to circuits I’m aware of but am not part of.)

This is similar to independent consultants, who are also self-employed. They pay themselves to do marketing, accounting and so forth. They generate revenue by selling their time (in theory their expertise, but really just their time).

Interestingly, neither the author/speaker nor independent consultant model exists in any vibrant form outside of the US and Europe. The rest of the world doesn't seem to have a political or economic system that makes it practical to control your own destiny to this level. Certainly there are some authors/speakers in the rest of the world, but they are few and far between at this point in time. I expect globalization will change this over time.

But in the final analysis, there never has been a time when workers had ownership. Owners have ownership, and often employ (or enslave) workers to accomplish the work. This isn’t unique to the US or to capitalism.

One way to avoid this is to play a semantic game. But it is a good game, so bear with me.

At least in the IT/computer field it has become clear over the past 30 years that businesses have no loyalty to their computer staff. Computer staff are typically viewed as interchangeable widgets that can be let go and replaced without any real effort. The fact that this view is actually entirely inaccurate and cripples company’s ability to really leverage IT is beside the point. The reality is that IT people switch jobs very frequently – typically staying at a job less than 3 years.

The ultimate effect is that IT people are self-employed but don’t know it. Sure they get a W2 and benefits, but in reality they’ll switch to another “employer” without a thought. More money? I’m there. Better benefits? I’m there. Lost this job? I’ll switch to another.

This is exactly the way independent consultants work, except they get paid via a 1099 and they charge more because they need to pay for their own benefits, vacation, etc.

So the semantic game is that all IT staff should view themselves as being self-employed. They just happen to be W2 consultants rather than 1099 consultants. It isn’t like IT people have job stability anyway (which is the primary reason to not be self-employed), so just face facts and realize that self-employment is the natural state of affairs.

The fact that this viewpoint interferes with loyalty to your employer is not overly important. Except for a tiny minority of companies, it isn’t like your employer is loyal to you, so why should you be loyal back? That’d be just plain silly.

Personally I think this worldview can (and should) extend to any other worker position where there’s reasonable mobility between employers. Obviously it doesn’t work well in cases where mobility doesn’t exist – in which case alternative schemes like unions probably make sense.

Coming full-circle, consider the carpenter. Some are overtly self-employed, others are workers. But the workers typically switch from job to job, from employer to employer on a regular basis. The reality is that even the workers are effectively self-employed, they just don’t think of themselves that way.

Or consider workers in retail or restaurants. It isn’t like job mobility is an issue – you can switch jobs with ease. These people are self-employed, but don’t think of it that way. They think they have a job. But they don’t – not really – it isn’t like any retail store is loyal to them, and it isn’t like they couldn’t switch to a comparable job at any point.

Though it may be a semantic game, this is the only way we’re likely to radically increase the “ownership” of workers. ‘Cause they’ll never “own” the retail store, or the business, but at least they could “own” their own employment.