Reference no: EM131053826

Economics Discussion question

Please review the instructions and read the entire page.

Please confirm deadline and price are ok.

In light of Thanksgiving tradition I want us to spend time analyzing an unorthodox view in economics that goes against the mainstream consensus because there are always two or more sides to any issue, and to truly engage in critical thinking you must be able to analyze all sides of an issue. This is apparent when you analyze the actual Thanksgiving holiday.

On one side you have the dominant or orthodox view of Thanksgiving which regards it as a celebratory feast day that is to be shared with family and loved ones, while on the other side you have the point of view from Native Americans, who most likely interpret the holiday much differently than their orthodox counterpart.

The author of our textbook at the end of chapter 1 on page 33 denigrates the common ownership of enterprises by describing the experiences of the pilgrims in 1620 at the Plymouth Colony. He makes the case that common ownership of the land led to food shortages and starvation, and that the assignment of individual plots of land to families led to increased prosperity and farm yields without detailing any of the circumstances or facts involved in the situation.

The reason I am writing this is not to argue about the facts involved in the Plymouth Colony situation, but rather I want us to explore the idea of common ownership as a way of organizing modern enterprises in today's economy.

In an enterprise where labor is divided from ownership-such as a modern corporation where divorced shareholders elect the board of directors who hire management and run an organization-there invariably becomes a conflict between workers and owners. Owners can perceive workers as unmotivated who will take every opportunity to shirk their duties; therefore, they have to hire managers to carefully monitor the employees to make sure they are not shirking their duties.

Many people have made the case that the hiring of armies of managers to carefully monitor workers is a vast waste of resources and human capabilities and have brought up other questions. For instance, what if everyone owned a stake in an enterprise and had a say in how that enterprise was ran? Would a worker/owner who has a real stake in the enterprise shirk his duties like a disenfranchised worker who has no stake or say in how the enterprise is ran?

If a traditional enterprise was converted to worker ownership, could the managers, and when I say managers I mean the ones who do not directly or indirectly produce a good or service but rather just monitor frontline employees, be converted to actual frontline workers involved in the actual creation of goods and services? Would we be able to then take advantage of this enlarged frontline workforce by spreading the work around and decreasing working hours for everyone and give people more leisure time?

Once you begin to question the way traditional enterprises are ran you can see that there are many possible inefficiencies or consequences due to this division.

Assignment:

Watch the following PBS Newshour video that details the New Belgium Brewery Company which is owned by its workers:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/brewery-workers-pour-hearts-business-given-stake/

Write at least two paragraphs answering the following questions: 2 References are needed APA Format

1. Write about whether or not you believe productivity would go up, down, or stay the same in an enterprise where the workers are owners versus a traditional workplace. How would this affect GDP?

2. Write about some of the deleterious effects of modern corporations such as pollution, worker degradation, income inequality, etc., and analyze whether or not worker ownership would solve, worsen, or leave unchanged any of the problems that are associated with traditional workplaces.