I deeply appreciate these videos, Brett, for making such complicated things more digestible. Like ideologically I understand the centrality of workers and thereby the value and importance of worker ownership (unions at best a transitional form), but this really drove home the point that workers, for their indispensability, should also be the most powerful.
I feel there are two linked concepts that are missing from this video and that should be in it: the concept of "agency" and the related concept of "risk". Indeed you explain that we are all playing different roles in different situations: workers but also consumers and sometimes investors or taxmen.
However there are two roles that appear distinct: "worker" and "manager". One is either a "worker" or a "manager" - in the context of your explanation these two roles are in a dichotomy. So the question is raised: why can a worker also be a consumer or an investor or a taxman or a financier but not a manager?
If that implicit dichotomy was put in the spotlight, the answer would have been: "agency" and the ability to assess and take "risks". The reason people on the Continent prefer to be "workers" rather than "managers" is because they shun risks. Being a "worker" is a lot less risky than trying (and failing 99% of the time) to be a "manager".
In that respect, your implied symmetry (billionaires need workers to activate the assets) is not warranted. Billionaires have not been made so by the workers only, but also by their agency (starting a risky venture instead of going to do sports or watching TV) and by their luck (more often than "ability")
I deeply appreciate these videos, Brett, for making such complicated things more digestible. Like ideologically I understand the centrality of workers and thereby the value and importance of worker ownership (unions at best a transitional form), but this really drove home the point that workers, for their indispensability, should also be the most powerful.
I feel there are two linked concepts that are missing from this video and that should be in it: the concept of "agency" and the related concept of "risk". Indeed you explain that we are all playing different roles in different situations: workers but also consumers and sometimes investors or taxmen.
However there are two roles that appear distinct: "worker" and "manager". One is either a "worker" or a "manager" - in the context of your explanation these two roles are in a dichotomy. So the question is raised: why can a worker also be a consumer or an investor or a taxman or a financier but not a manager?
If that implicit dichotomy was put in the spotlight, the answer would have been: "agency" and the ability to assess and take "risks". The reason people on the Continent prefer to be "workers" rather than "managers" is because they shun risks. Being a "worker" is a lot less risky than trying (and failing 99% of the time) to be a "manager".
In that respect, your implied symmetry (billionaires need workers to activate the assets) is not warranted. Billionaires have not been made so by the workers only, but also by their agency (starting a risky venture instead of going to do sports or watching TV) and by their luck (more often than "ability")