Do you know about Distributism?

[philipl]

The company where I work has about 200,000 people. Good luck with getting them to agree. But in a very real way capitalism is just this. you can buy stock in a company.

 

[midori]

Sure. So, Starbucks is going to be of a similar size to wherever you work-- it employs 254,000 people (globally?) and has an annual revenue of $22.38 billion. There are about 22,000 coffeehouses in general in the United States, with an annual revenue of $10 billion. I have no clue what they’re counting Starbucks as, if they’re not counting it as a coffeehouse-- because Starbucks makes more than twice as much than the rest of America’s coffeehouses combined. No big surprise there. Elsewhere, it says it has about 40% of the US Coffee Chain Industry market share.

So, let’s just limit ourselves to Starbucks. They have global locations, and company-operated locations and licensed locations as well. So let’s just limit ourselves to Starbucks-in-the-United-States, which has 8,222 company-operated stores and 5,708 licensed stores, for a total of of almost 14,000 locations in the US in 2017. (27,339 locations globally.) It had 157,000 US employees in 2015. So, let’s pretend that the US accounts for half the Starbucks locations and half the Starbucks revenue-- let’s call it $11 billion, just for round numbers.

Now, let’s pretend that out of the 157,000 Starbucks employees, they all pair up into teams of two to join forces, get themselves a coffee kiosk, an espresso machine, a coffee maker, a dorm fridge, and some toaster ovens, and they all go into business for themselves. So that’s 78,500 new coffee kiosk locations, which replace the lost 14,000 Starbucks. Because we all know Starbucks concentrates in urban areas, but not so much in small towns.


So, let’s take the $11 billion and divide it between the 78,500 new coffee kiosks. It’s about $140k revenue per shop. Which works out to about $70k/person. Sure, there are operating expenses, so it’s not like they’re bringing home $70k… surely you can run a coffee kiosk for less than $20-$40k/year, so perhaps they only make $60-$50k take-home pay… but the average household income in the US is $59k. So, poof, they’ve already practically made two people’s salary on one person’s paycheck. The average Starbucks employee, on the other hand, currently makes less than $20k/year, which includes wages, tips, company stock, and other bonuses. The Starbucks CEO, on the other hand, isn’t the one standing behind the counter-- but he’s the one who makes $9.7 million/year, between a $1.19M base salary, and $7.786M in options.

So, in our imaginary scenario, they’ve increased their risk-- because they’re not just clocking in and making coffee in a four-hour shift between classes-- but they’ve also potentially tripled their income, because they’re the ones who own the kiosk, the fridge, the espresso machine, and they’re the ones who profit from knowing how to use them with their own skill.

Not that there’s anything wrong with earning $9.7M for leadership. But rather than having one guy with $9.7M and a quarter-million people earning under $20k, you instead end up with the 157,000 people (or the quarter-million people, depending on whether you’re talking globally or US-based) hypothetically earning $50-$60k.

 

[Athanasiy]

The Just Third Way: Do We Need the Rich?, IV: How Past Savings Enslaves

 

[anon65111186]

Interesting article and other articles on that site! Reasonable and readable!

 

[anon65111186]

I’m not sure I understand Distributivism. I notinclined to think Republicans are for it??It suggests distributing… wealth?? Or opportunities.Now, providing opportunities for work, is our Republican philosophy.

I vote Republican as well, because as you said it isn’t viable yet to vote for a third party candidate. Nevertheless distributism isn’t about taking money or giving it away, it is founded on the right to own private property, and that includes owning the means of making money, whichever tool you use to make money with. Things should be owned and controlled at the most local level possible, not at the state or federal level. These ideas are not necessarily outside of the Republican platform, and actually match some aspects of the party’s position.

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings
Small govt. w opportunities for jobs that increase taxes and pays bills.
Third parties won’t work unless that party overpowered one of the other parties to make it a two party system.
Hopefully, prayer power can change hearts of bad ppl to good. Godly principles.
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[anon65111186]

Hopefully, prayer power can change hearts of bad ppl to good. Godly principles

I agree, let’s pray for the salvation of all who have fallen from God’s grace.

Third parties won’t work unless that party overpowered one of the other parties to make it a two party system.

In America we have been conditioned to think the only way is a two party system and so the only way to get a third party is to replace one of the big ones. Not necessarily true, look at most countries in the world, they have many parties and still elections happen fine.

A third party could easily arise here in the US.

 

[tweedlealice]

Blessings
It’s not that a three party system is forbidden. We’ve had attempts. The point is, the third party pulls votes from the other parties. The third doesn’t win and the least favorite wins! That is painful. Practically, speaking, it has worked against us. We have the Green Party. It gets 2% of the vote.Maybe 5 serious parties will balance the votes?
In Christ’s Love
Tweedlealice

 

[philipl]

So two people will run a store that is open from 5am till 10pm 7 days a week. There is a reason that Starbucks only has 14000 stores. They put lots of time and effort into market research as to where to build a store. So lets keep it at 14000 stores and 11 owners per store Some of those store will be in better locations than others. How do you decide which group of 11 get what location? In fact how do you decide which 11 will work together as a group? Do each of the 11 have to invest the same amount of dollars? If you average the two major types of coffee shops it takes about $180,000 to open a store at is $17000 per person. What is only 7 of the 11 have that type of cash? There are so many flaws in Distributism that they cant be addressed here. But one of the major problems with it is the Human factor. No matter how you try you cannot remove human failings. Just list those 7 deadly sins.

 

[anon65111186]

So two people will run a store that is open from 5am till 10pm 7 days a week. There is a reason that Starbucks only has 14000 stores. They put lots of time and effort into market research as to where to build a store.

I think you assume that local owners can’t do market research, is that so?

How do you decide which group of 11 get what location? In fact how do you decide which 11 will work together as a group? Do each of the 11 have to invest the same amount of dollars?

Those which are local will decide themselves. Nobody is divvying up starbucks locations in the first place anyhow. Starbucks invests different amounts in different stores, pays different amounts for different real estate, and so would local ownership of coffee houses, nothing changes in distributism.

There are so many flaws in Distributism that they cant be addressed here. But one of the major problems with it is the Human factor. No matter how you try you cannot remove human failings. Just list those 7 deadly sins.

Address just one, or the biggest one here, because I don’t see a problem in the contents of your post.

Human failings exist for any system, capitalism, socialism, and distributism. Distributism doesn’t assume angels run the system, but that is what communism assumes.

 

[midori]

It’s all an imaginary scenario anyways. Because there’s no way that every single person who works for Starbucks would ever consider going into business for themselves. A lot of people who work for Starbucks like being able to work for four hours, and then get on with the rest of their life-- whether it’s family, or school, or whatever. Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner-- regardless of whether it’s agriculture, or retail, or hospitality/dining, or entertainment, or whatever. Not everyone is at a point in their life where they can put the hours in to run their own biz. Not everyone wants the risk.

But the point of distributism is where ordinary people putting in the hours, putting in the risk, and reaping the rewards is normal— just as normal as choosing to punch a clock to work on behalf of millionaires. Not that there’s anything wrong with working on behalf of millionaires. That’s cool, too. But I’d rather be the millionaire in the scenario! The easiest way to become a millionaire is to be born to rich parents. The next-easiest way is to win the lottery. But if neither of those plans works out, it’s not just hard work— but smart work, discipline, and a long-term plan. Results aren’t guaranteed. That’s where the risk comes in. But distributism is about not putting in artificial obstacles to make it more difficult than it already is, if you want to have a shot at running a successful biz.

In our imaginary scenario, there’s no one dictating, “Sorry, Team Fred. You drew the short straw. Team Suzy gets New Orleans. Team Harold gets Baton Rouge. Team Oscar gets Lafayette. Team Fred gets Chataignier.” In our imaginary scenario, there’s no one dictating, “Team Suzy gets the $5M location on Bourbon Street. Team Harold gets the renovated bungalow in historic downtown. Team Oscar gets the Hyatt location. Sorry, Team Fred. You get the repurposed sno-cone stand, but if you do well, maybe we’ll upgrade you to a food truck in about ten years.” In our imaginary scenario, there’s no one prohibiting them from taking on some extra help for $8/hr + tips. Because distributism doesn’t mandate, “Everybody has to do everything exactly the same way.” Instead, it opens up the possibilities for ordinary people to attempt success in their own way, rather than trying to navigate a monolithic economy.

 

[philipl]

I went and tried to find an example of Distributism being used successfully anywhere. Why not? I read where people claim the only way to get it to work is the over throw of governments.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I vote Republican as well, because as you said it isn’t viable yet to vote for a third party candidate. Nevertheless distributism isn’t about taking money or giving it away, it is founded on the right to own private property, and that includes owning the means of making money, whichever tool you use to make money with. Things should be owned and controlled at the most local level possible, not at the state or federal level. These ideas are not necessarily outside of the Republican platform, and actually match some aspects of the party’s position.

I am not a Repub, but I do vote for their candidates because the Dems are all pro-abortion.

But I do agree with what you say here.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The easiest way to become a millionaire is to be born to rich parents

I read an interesting book in which the author demonstrated that most millionaires did not inherit it. Most have small businesses and the wealth is all in the business.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I went and tried to find an example of Distributism being used successfully anywhere. Why not? I read where people claim the only way to get it to work is the over throw of governments.

Possibly one could argue that the period right after the Revolutionary War was “distributism at its height” in America, because if you were willing to risk starvation, Indians and wild animals, you could just go out and get some land for the taking. Later on, during the homestead era, you didn’t even risk Indians. You just went out, registered for land and started your sod hut or log cabin as the case might be.

But as I understand true “Distributism” it prevails to a large extent in the U.S. of today inasmuch as you do get to keep most of the fruits of your labor and can acquire productive assets without anyone keeping you from doing it.

 

[midori]

Yes! There’s a humongous difference between having a million dollars’ worth of assets, and a million dollars liquid, just lying around.

Suppose my biz that I personally owned had a million is assets. But if I only have $5k in my checking account, I definitely will be having problems. So in that case, I wouldn’t consider myself a millionaire— even though I’d technically fit the definition.

 

[midori]

Over in Post #57, you could see Distributism in the wild. It was what the British economy was naturally moving towards, as they emerged from an economic slavery with its roots in pagan slavery, and as the generations passed, naturally moving more towards an economic model of more personal freedom. Once you start getting into the 11th and 12th c, the serfs are still bound to the land, as you had with the villae/slave relationship, but what does that entail? It means that the family has a legal obligation to till a quota of land. But once that duty’s been fulfilled— it’s normal/easy/common for members of the serf-class to enter professions, or to enter the Church, or to go participate in the industries that are growing in local towns. In other words, these families who have been bound to the land for generations are still, legally, bound to the land… but there are individuals within those families who now have the personal freedom to go out and pursue whatever career they want, once the land is taken care of. And that’s pretty much a radical idea-- because it’s never existed before.

And as time passes, more and more people have that freedom to go out and pursue whatever career they want. And although, say, like after the Plague, you might get into a period where people insist upon compulsory labor, people are pretty darn used to their freedom, and used to paying off other people to perform their compulsory labor for them, and things like that. The people who had existed as slaves back in the Dark Ages-- their descendants were now free men, for all purposes. They could buy, they could sell, they could save, they could invest, they could build, they could spend, they could improve their land, they could will it to their children, they couldn’t be evicted from it.

So you’ve got this rising class of three types of people: you have the serf; you have the freeholder; and you have the craftsman. And all three of them were creating an economy that’s based on family-owned private property. Because that was the norm.

 

[midori]

But then when did it fly off the rails? Like in post #57 points out, it fell apart at the Dissolution of the Monasteries. The King grabs anywhere from a quarter to a third of the economic resources from the Church… and he fails to keep it for himself. The nobility is too strong for him. The nobility themselves controlled a proportional amount of land-- anything from a quarter to a third of the economic pie-- and all of a sudden, they control half the economic pie in one whoosh.

So, you can see this reflected in the architecture. Prior to the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the house of whoever was most important in the local area was maybe a little bigger than anyone else’s, but it was still ultimately just a very nice farmhouse. But after the Dissolution, that’s when you start getting your magnificent palaces. Before this time, the gentry were richer men, but not the masters of other people. After this time, they were not only the masters of the ordinary common people— but they were richer and more powerful than the Crown. The process started in 1536. By the time you get to 1630-1640 (right before Cromwell took power), the economic transformation was pretty much complete, and it never went back.

So-- I’m not saying “let’s all be peasants in the Middle Ages”, just like I’m not saying “let’s all be pioneers in the Old West” or “let’s all run around in the Dust Bowl like a Steinbeck novel”. But the point is, you could see an inspiring amount of progress in just four centuries… where would things have ended up, if they had been permitted to develop?

 

[Athanasiy]

Own the Future or Be Owned by the Wealthy Capital Ownership Class Who Owns Now and the Future of Automation!!
http://www.foreconomicjustice.org/?p=17692

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I hope my special opportunities mutual funds are investing in robots and cobots!