Of course, union battles are a matter of history. And yes, today the rational agents of global economies often see unionization as a threat, clearly.

I argue that it’s only a threat insofar as it’s a disruptive paradigm. On the whole it’s a more fiscally advantageous schema for all but the monolithic “vertically integrated” international corporations that profit largely from self-dealing (and probably need to be broken up anyway).

You said businesses prioritize “Control” and “Power” over profit — i.e. they are not rational economic agents but despots. It’s a bleak perspective since despots can’t be reasoned with, only overthrown, and moreover it dismisses economic theory entirely.

I’m just weary of the defeatism. I know we’ve been through a lot and many of us are terribly jaded, but giving up is not an option. I want to win.

That is fascinating. It makes a lot of sense. They’re safe to point out when the emperor has no clothes.

OK just so we’re crystal, I’m only interested in fixing what’s broken. I have no time for doomerism, tedious conspiracies, or despair.

At the expense of profit? If control is preferable to operational stability, why do so many businesses use IT vendors?

No joke, I see this becoming more common. They’re even doing it the way I imagined: straight up integrated with onboarding.

Maybe it’s an outspoken prediction, that in the future many more businesses will prefer a unionized workforce, but I think a number of current societal and market vectors would suggest that trend. In particular, consider the variety of HR-related logistics, liabilities, and relational concerns of a modern business that amount to operational overhead. You can likely imagine ways that unions might simplify, stabilize, or fully externalize that friction, such that the increased productivity outweighs higher labor expenses, similar to the way efficiency wages in labor economics can ultimately reduce turnover related expenses. That’s just one way unions could become an attractive solution to employers and employees alike.

At any rate, it’s what I would prefer if I needed to hire W2s, to the extent that I’d be willing to help spin up local chapters if necessary, and it only takes a handful of successful examples to accelerate labor trends.

So there’s employment in the afterlife?

This one’s a pet peeve, especially if the person is with me. IMO it’s one of the simplest ways to discover your friend likely has zero game with people who aren’t paid to be nice to them.

ETA: In case you feel called out and are wondering “What, so bartenders and waitstaff are totally off-limits?”
Of course not! You can shoot your shot, just try to keep it holstered until you’re (1) on even footing instead of a customer-host advantage and (2) aren’t cornering them in a place they must stay to make a living. For example, you could hold off until the bill is paid and/or they’re off the clock, then ask for digits on your way out (signaling you have no intention of bothering them further if there’s no interest) or give your number so the ball is fully in their court. Of course, if they shoot their shot first, rules of engagement are suspended. Mine did and she’s alright I guess. The above are her suggestions.

Damn, that’s way catchier than weaponized incompetence.

That’s nothing!

Ever seen a group of guys stuck in a terminal one-downsmanship spiral of mutual unaccountability?

It’s epic bro. Totally blows the doors off your example.

No, it’s a beautiful country, the people are nice and the food is great. (Maybe visit first in the dry season though.)

Is that where furries come from?

lol never, also this strategy undermines the presidency

Bingo

deleted by creator

My bad, I forgot to define that term. It refers to a federalist ideal that gives a larger share of governmental responsibility to the federal level.

The purview of state and local governance in superfederalism would be less prominent than in the EU and US, for example.

Katamari raider superfederalism

Edit: TL;DR When all you have is infantry, and the enemy brings a tank, focus on commandeering the tank.

Summary: This one is a bit more niche. It’s a short-term and last-resort revolutionary organizational strategy that aims to provide a representative democratic framework via distributed (or directed fractional) shareholding in order to (1) legally seize private capital from a hostile oligarchy, (2) operate a de facto interim government in a post-capitalist/dystopian context, and finally (3) rebuild government without the interference of capital. In short, we eat the rich.

Key ideas:

1. If progress in society and government has been frustrated by the longterm over-empowerment of corporate machinery and weakening of government, it may become prudent or necessary to opportunistically use this overpowered machinery for a nonviolent revolution.
2. This can be done, even in a hostile oligarchic setting, using proven methods of market manipulation and corporate raiding, amplified by superior numbers, and staid by the negation of growth as a shareholder concern. The only viable defense available to any targeted conglomerate would be either to (a) cede capital to scabs or competing oligarchs in exchange for rescue and/or (b) improve government regulatory power to allow intervention, both of which weaken their position.
3. Since corporations have analogues of democratic structure, they can temporarily provide a legal analog for federal self-organization that is fortified against potential countermeasures of the old, corrupted government, courtesy of said corrupted government. In other words, we’re not trapped in this economy with them; they’re trapped in this economy with us.
4. The market capture phase could take years, depending on the pace of rank and file expansion but, unlike traditional labor organization, austerity measures aren’t necessary. This strategy begins distributing spoils (dividends) to current and future participants immediately. They need only claim their shares to receive them, and this incentive increases exponentially as market capture proceeds. Ultimately these dividends become exceedingly large, well beyond any UBI proposal, such that buy-in of all economic participants is virtually guaranteed.

When to use: It would be used as a last ditch effort in lieu of simpler, more traditional forms of organization, like trade unions and grassroots political mobilization, when these methods have failed. The point would be expediency, to postpone the otherwise immediate need for massive remediation, government deposition, and legislative restructuring, and to do so without bloodshed. The core strategic use of corporate apparatus includes market capture via cascading hostile takeover of public sectors and representative superfederalist self-organization for both collective action in the market and asset management/distribution.

Market capture apparatus: Workers would commandeer the overpowered institutional machinery of modern-day corporatocracy by staging a rapid campaign of mechanized corporate raiding. This would entail using vastly superior numbers to target, devalue, then “eat” the holdings of increasingly large capitalists, via outright takeover, share dilution, the attrition of relentless greenmail, and/or similarly targeted dogpiling in the market. While this type of raiding would normally face hyperbolic friction due to market efficiency, a successfully designed apparatus would maintain the collective action necessary to sidestep these effects with minimal loss of capital.

Superfederalist apparatus: The legal tools available for modern corporate organization are extensive and flexible, and crafting democratic and representative structures within these public organizations can and should begin immediately, while market capture is underway. Using shell corporations, incremental public offerings, and equity guarantees of irrevocable trusts, we can replicate existing federal-state-local governmental structures with incentivized participation via continually increasing onboarding bonuses and weekly dividend distribution. Top-heavy federal governance (aka “superfederalism”) is particularly useful where expediency and dispatch is a priority, and is what I would recommend. Regardless, at the outset, initial articles of at least the highest umbrella corp would need to be carefully written to strictly enforce the longterm distribution of equity. Otherwise aberrant internal power fluctuation would be the Achilles heel that upends the project and ultimately returns all captured sectors to free-market equilibria.

Purpose: Once majority (or total) market capture is achieved, such that the bulk of the economy is officially owned by the federal umbrella/cooperative (the people), the economic takeover would be sufficient to develop a more sensible government without the corruption/interference of the “invisible hand.” It should then be much easier to do so after the antagonistic forces of free market capital have been neutralized.

Caveats:

1. Of course, we are talking about a monolithic transient organization, well beyond the typical monopoly, but the fact that the shareholder base includes potentially all constituents makes government intervention improbable. Regardless, institutional antitrust measures are demonstrably toothless against accumulated capital.
2. This may sound reminiscent of the ill-fated GME/AMC scheme, and is indeed similar in spirit. While the primary weaknesses of that effort should be addressed in this strategy (namely WRT collective action problems and the scope of market capture) it’s generally important to bear in mind the lengths to which oligarchs are willing to go in order to preserve their position. The key would be ensuring deterrence, such that capitalists can only choose between capitulation, scorched earth attrition, or escalation to violence.
3. This strategy requires the destruction of capital. The aforementioned devaluation tactic of corporate raiding and the longterm suppression of free market mechanics will inevitably cause massive economic recession even though participants themselves gain increasing financial stability and power well beyond any historic economic boom. But this drawdown on the old economy is a necessary sacrifice of the revolution that would be recovered in the new economy. Think of it like a controlled forest fire.
4. Ultimately it must be temporary, like an interim government, so the resulting universal revolutionary cooperative should transition following market capture and restructuring of the state. A sensible government designed by and for the people is clearly a more appropriate longterm solution than an ad-hoc public entity designed for corporate raiding.

deleted by creator

I’ve looked into getting a continuous monitor a few times because the data could be useful for training optimization, like HIIT and functional lifts, but everything currently available tends to be expensive or clunky. Smaller or more affordable wearables would be quite welcome.

Concur. Especially the frightening and shocking appearance of the augmented closet.

My favorite augmentation is cobwebs all over the room. Often pretty convincing, like if only I could move I could grab them. But then, POOF. Fully awake.

deleted by creator