Businesses and industries are having a hard time hiring people. They are offering better pay and benefits than ever. Even minimum wage pay is a thing of the past. So, I don't agree.
Not really, because although they might pay more, as far as in the area of employee benefits and work conditions, companies are failing to meet the needs of their workers.
They're trying to recover their losses from the pandemic and imposing a very austere work regime and cutting expenses wherever they can. That negatively affects work conditions and the workers who have to work under those austerities. More, aren't you a champion of freedom and liberty? Why are you for totalitarianism in the workplace, and not for it in politics? Freedom and liberty in politics, but not in the place where 94% of America spends most of its waking hours, i.e. the workplace. Do you like being a capitalist feudal lord? The United States has an absolute dictatorship in the workplace, but then you ironically defend "freedom and liberty" in politics? The workers, the people who are producing everything are the ones who should be running the operation, democratically.
Workers don't need capitalists, especially today with all of the advanced technology we have available, allowing us to more easily produce everything we consume.
Worker-run cooperatives could produce everything, meeting all of the needs of consumers.
The problem here in the US is that the SBA
(Small Business Administration) and the banks don't support funding and launching labor cooperatives
(business enterprises that are owned collectively by the people who work them). Smart capitalists, many of the members of our ruling class, are horrified by the prospect of competing with hundreds or thousands of worker-owned cooperatives due to the higher competitive durability, sustainability, productive capacity, and robustness, of worker-owned and run enterprises. Workers create a business together, not to become filthy rich, but to create job security, secure their livelihoods, and offer a needed or desired product or service to their communities
(that's the "bottom line" of the worker-cooperative).
A private capitalist-owned business enterprise must turn a considerable profit for its owner/s or shareholders, otherwise it can't survive. The bottom line and means of survival for a privately owned business is profits. However, if a worker-cooperative is paying all of its bills and has enough money to purchase materials from suppliers, it's in business. Paying labor isn't part of the "overhead" or cost of doing business, in the same way as it is for a privately owned company, because the workers own the business and their salaries are their profits. Should a labor cooperative make a profit above salaries? Sure, profits i.e. a surplus, is good for a business, be it a privately owned business or a labor-cooperative, but a cooperative isn't as dependent on a surplus as the privately owned enterprise is.
The cooperative's profits are the private enterprises' overhead i.e. cost of doing business. Worker salaries are a great expense for private owners that cut into their profits.
Worker cooperatives tend to reinvest more into their business, buying better machines and facilities, hiring new workers
(worker-owners), selling their products or services at a lower price without compromising quality. Offering better warranties for their products and services. The wealthy ruling class, doesn't want workers to free themselves of their control, by forming worker-owned cooperatives that will compete against them.
Workers in America are asleep, they don't understand that they are the ones who really hold all of the power, not their wealthy capitalist employers i.e. exploiters, who rule overthem with their money. The working-class doesn't need the capitalists, they can take the reins of power at any moment, but unfortunately the giant, that is American labor, is comatose. Asleep. Completely brainwashed.
ballotpedia.org
