The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
The Contender
ImaWin
Con (against)

Cooperative/socialist businesses(pro) versus Traditional/capitalist Businesses(con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ImaWin has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 565 times Debate No: 98514
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

Definitions of terms:
"A cooperative (also known as co-operative, co-op or coop) is an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business"

Capitalist business: Since capitalism is "an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."[2] A capitalist business, is therefore a business that is privately-owned as opposed to cooperatively owned or state-owned. A capitalist business is considered private property of a business owner, and private property is " a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities ."[3] Thus a cooperative is not part of the capitalist system and differs from the traditional/capitalist business.

Rules for debate (If any are violated I'll either not type in anymore rounds and let the debate forfeit, ask for the debate to be deleted, or point out that a rule was broken and ask the voters to vote for me for conduct since con would have violated a rule they agreed to)
1) If con uses round 1 for debate, they must waive round 4 from any rebuttals or argument in order to keep the rounds used for argument by both sides equal. Simply state something like "I waive this round as agreed upon."
2) Round structure
A ) The round structure for con should be this if con uses round 1 for debate:
Round 1: Main arguments
Round 2: Rebuttal against pro's round 2 argument, ie: point out any fallacies, conflicting statistics/facts, etc
Round 3: Defense against pro's round 3 rebuttal
Round 4: Waiving of this round
B) The round structure for pro and con(if they don't use round 1 for debate) should be this:
Round 1: Outline of rules, acceptance, state your position
Round 2: Main arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals against round 2 main arguments, ie: point out any fallacies, conflicting statistics/facts, etc
Round 4: Defense against round 3 rebuttal
3) Google docs or an external link to your argument is allowed if you prefer to use that, but don't go over the 10,000 character limit. A character limit is necessary so that neither of us posts much more than the other unless it's agreed upon, as that would put one at a disadvantage. In addition, the character limit is there so that readers/voters don't have to read an entire book.

Pretty much everything is fair game, but keep in mind that if you use fallacies, they will be pointed out and that would weaken your argument. Any unbiased voter would penalize you for the use of fallacies by voting differently for the category of the most convincing arguments.


I will be arguing that cooperatives are a better alternative to traditional businesses


Source:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...;

ImaWin

Con

I will be arguing for a Free market, Competitive, Capitalist established businesses while my opponent will be arguing for a planned, Cooperative, and Socialist businesses.

I will not be using my round 1 for arguments, as I believe the Affirmative should show the harms and need for change in any action.

As per my opponents rules I will outline my own set of rules.
1st Moral arguments are weighed on impacts.
2nd Stay within your prescribed burdens. If you argue something that is on the fence, prove to the voter that it is topical to today's debate.
3rd No new arguments within the last round.
4th Impact calculation is the only weigh to judge the competing systems, and as such Impact calculation is the highest judging mechanism.
5th State your Impacts round 3 so we can attack/defend them.

This should be fun. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

First, I would like con to explain what exactly they mean by "impact calculation". Does this mean to determine what sort of impact traditional businesses and cooperatives have on society? Since they said to state impacts in round 3, I assume I can just go on ahead with my arguments and wait for them to answer. Since this is not technically part of the debate, con may answer this question in the comments if they don't want to use some of their characters for this. I just put it here since I didn't need to use all of my characters for this argument, I barely used more than half, and I believe my argument is sufficient the way it is.

How do Cooperatives and traditional businesses compare?
Cooperatives are actually, in many ways, more successful than traditional business models. For example, 80% of cooperatives survive the first 5 years of being in business, compared to 41% of the traditional business model. [4] Additionally, In a comparative study performed by Gabriel Burd"n and Andr"s Dean, where they looked into how cooperatives performed in the Uruguayan economic crisis between 1999-2001, it was found that Workers cooperatives employment index rose, while their capitalist counterparts fell in employment. [5, pg. 520] In addition to this, average wage remained higher in worker cooperatives than in capitalist businesses. [5, pg. 523]

Can cooperatives be successful?
I will point out that it is possible for worker cooperatives to be extremely successful and that they can turn over profit at a rate as good, or even often better than traditional businesses. Mondragon Corporation is the largest cooperative in the world and "is the tenth-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country." [6] Therefore, it is not the case that traditional businesses have a monopoly on profit turnover. In addition, cooperatives, on average, are larger than traditional businesses, where 69.3% of traditional businesses in France have 6 or fewer employees, compared to 52% of cooperatives in France, and in Uruguay, the percentages of them respectively are 64.1% and 8.6%[7, pgs 7-8] In addition it's been found that "in Italy the median capital per employee is higher in worker co-operatives" [7, pg. 17]

Potential argument against cooperatives:
"If cooperatives were so much better than traditional businesses, then we should see cooperatives out-competing traditional businesses, but traditional businesses are still the majority"
While cooperatives are so few and far between, the primary reason is because the system is constructed in such a way that favors capitalist companies. For one, banks rarely loan out to cooperatives[8](despite the fact that the ones that do exist are generally more successful than their capitalist counterparts as established above), the government only ever bails out traditional businesses and never cooperatives, cooperatives are not generally set-up to out-compete other companies either[8], and finally cooperatives are at a disadvantage since the vast majority(89%) of people can't even define what a cooperative is[9], I personally didn't even know what a cooperative was until I was 20, but I could give you a basic idea of what a capitalist business was before I was 10. I think I can safely assume that a vast majority of people have heard of and can define what a traditional/capitalist business is like, so most people shop at those and people looking to create a business probably never thought about making it a cooperative instead of a traditional business since most don't even know what one is.

Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businesses
Traditional businesses are immoral because they have an unncessary position which takes money away from people who could be earning it instead. The bussines owner is an unnecessary position and they take a percentage of the profits based on what the workers do. That profit could be distributed amongst the workers if the business owner was not there and the employees owned the business. The fact that cooperatives do exist, show that a business owner is not necessary. While someone could argue that since there are so few cooperatives, this shows that a business owner is necessary in order to have success in a company, this is proven false with the facts I showed about cooperatives above. Essentially, a cooperative gives a level of consent not seen in traditional businesses. A person has to work in order to survive, so the fact that business owners know this mean they can have outrageuous demands on the workers, since they may not have any other option. It often takes many applications to jobs to finally get one, so a person is desperate enough to make a living that they will be forced to put up with a tyrannical business owner. However, if all of the businesses were cooperatives, the worker would have a say in business rules, decisions, etc. Similar to how governments that don't give a consent to the governed are immoral, so are traditional businesses for the same reason.



Sources:
[4] http://www.uk.coop...;
[5] http://www.sciencedirect.com...;(Note: I used to use a different link for this peer-reviewed article which provided the article for free, but that link no longer works[maybe they got in trouble for offering other people's work for free]. Unfortunately, this one you have to pay for to have access to, maybe you can find this article free elsewhere if you want to look for it) This is the original link, but I'm pretty sure it won't work: http://disjointedthinking.jeffhughes.ca...;
[6] dragon_Corporation">https://en.wikipedia.org...dragon_Corporation (if part of this link is not hyper-linked, simply look for "Mondragon Corporation" on wikipedia)
[7] http://www.uk.coop...;
[8] https://www.youtube.com...;
[9] http://www.geo.coop...;
ImaWin

Con

Overview Arguments
1.Impacts is the impact of your point that you are making on society.
Impact Calculation shows both sides worlds going forward, For example I could say that an Impact of voting for the Pro is a less stable society with rampant unemployment. You could then argue that they either won't happen (low probability), would happen so far in the future that solutions could be made available (no time frame), or that the effect won't be as bad as I argue (Magnitude). In the final round we are then able to argue which world is better and it will be measurable, rather then abstract realities.
2. Which kind of cooperative are we talking about? All of them in general? I need to be able to know for this to be a clear debate. For you to know "there are different co-ops to satisfy different needs:
Mutual Societies
Building Societies
Credit Unions
Consumer Co-ops
Producer (worker) Co-ops
Another key distinguishing feature is to whom the co-op belongs.

A co-op is sometimes owned collectively by its members, belonging to its members as a group. The group changes as members leave or new members join. Examples are the kibbutzim."(http://www.solhaam.org...)

I will assume you are talking about producer co-ops, but for your next speech if you outline a different specific advocacy, make it clear.

Producer Co-ops are worker owned. I assume you want to talk about Producer Co-ops because you cite the Mondragon Corporation which is a Producer Co-op.

Now for the real arguments,

1. Morality
Throughout history it has almost been impossible for a person to change their economic class. If you were born in poverty you were resigned to poverty for your entire existence. When this revolutionary idea of a society where if you had a good idea, and some people skills, you could make a business and go from rags to riches. restricting a persons opportunity to achieve their best for what they do is unjust. If I work harder then my co-worker, I deserve more money then he. It is my due. Co-ops controlled by the worker is giving the worker jurisdiction in matters that he does not deserve to control. A group of workers that are lazy or un-knowledgeable could reduce or eliminate work incentives, or destroy the company. The only way a Producer Co-op can work is through having an executive area. As with any executive area, they can become corrupt and bend the pay rules into his/her favor. Also when a person chooses an employer they can quit to join that employers competitor. This creates a balance between workers rights and executive profit. A employer needs to pay an employee well so that the employee will not defect to his rival. Also, workers can unionize for better conditions. The employer knows more about how to keep the company afloat while the grunt worker does not and should not be given that responsibility.

Impacts
1. Co-ops do not give each their due while a traditional business does.
2. Co-ops are more corruptible then traditional business.

Contention 2. Co-ops harm the national economy.
It takes a lot of initial capital to start a business, and many companies need reinvestment in order to survive the first few years. When you distribute profit evenly across a company you disable opportunities for new company creation. This is why the United States, the home of capitalism, has the highest GDP by far(13.77 Trillion), while sudo-communist China only has 9.24 trillion GDP despite having almost three times the population. American billionaires are able to take their profits to make more companies and more jobs for Americans as a result. Also adding to the correlation between GDP and large amount of free capital is that China is transitioning its government to be more of a free market institution.

"China wants to overtake the U.S. to become the world"s biggest economy. That could happen in about 10 years if China can pull off the tricky transition from a government-run, centralized growth model to a more market-driven one where services and consumption play a greater part." https://www.bloomberg.com...

Impact
The amount of wealth a nation has is directly correlated to the amount of free capital the entrepreneur's (company creators) have.

3 The effect of a failed co-op are felt even more by the nation.

In a traditional business economy, business have a low success rate. This is a good thing. In a capitalist society which businesses survive and those that don't are decided by the consumers.This means that the ones that do survive are custom made for the consumers buying the products at the end of the day. When the business's fail the initial investors (rich millionaires) foot the bill for the lost money. The economy has little to know noticeable after-effect of this failed company. In a co-op the initial invests are the workers, and when a co-op does fail the effects are more dramatic. Instead of just one bad financial year, former workers not only do not have a job any longer, but have lost any savings they have built up throughout their lifetimes. This can ruin lives and harm the about of goods that are bought which causes recessions. The government has to now go out of it's way to protect these companies, for example

"The Spanish government provided a good deal of support, providing from 12.5 to 20 per cent of the capital required by a new co-operative, at a fixed low rate of interest. And there were tax concessions. Co-operatives paid no corporation tax for the first ten years, and half the standard rate after that. Further, the Mondragon co-operatives were protected from foreign competition by import controls." http://www.solhaam.org...

This has a few noticeable impacts,
1st a co-op takes money from tax payers to promote something the original tax payer who is not apart of the co-op will receive no benefit from. That is not just.
2nd- It proves how unstable even the biggest co-op is, and how this system is a ticking time-bomb for an economic recession that governments have to baby to in order to stop a crisis.
3rd- This effect will make it so that co-op will not be able to experiment in product because the cost of failure is too high. Jobs that could have been made because of some risky idea striking gold will never happen. This loss of inventiveness explains why the United States GDP is so high.

I am looking forward to rebuttals next round, and I would like to thank the Pro for the great topic.
Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Pro

2. My intent wasn't to specify a type of cooperative I was talking about, but I was going for a general idea. However, now that you mentioned that producer co-ops are worker-owned, maybe I still didn't even fully understand what the term cooperative means. Doesn't it already mean it is worker-owned, since it's democratically controlled and jointly-owned? I thought that was the definition of a co-op, or at least how I understoodd it. That's the definition I provided in the first round, and it seems to imply that. Are you saying there are other companies that aren't worker-owned that claim to be coops? I think this should be discussed in the comments on this debate so that we don't waste debate space on this.

Rebuttals to con's points:
Quotes from con's argument will be italicized and I will respond accordingly.

Morality
restricting a persons opportunity to achieve their best for what they do is unjust. If I work harder then my co-worker, I deserve more money then he. It is my due
I don't see how this is a problem with coops, you didn't explain how a coop limits the amount of money you earn.

Co-ops controlled by the worker is giving the worker jurisdiction in matters that he does not deserve to control. A group of workers that are lazy or un-knowledgeable could reduce or eliminate work incentives, or destroy the company.
Then the majority of workers could vote to have them fired. People are still fired and let go in cooperatives. It's not like they are going to stay. And if majority of the people in the coop are lazy or un-knowledgeable, then that coop will probably fail, but since 80% of coops survive the first 5 years in business(see previous round for source), I don't think this is the case.

The only way a Producer Co-op can work is through having an executive area. As with any executive area, they can become corrupt and bend the pay rules into his/her favor.
And how does this not happen with capitalist companies? The business owner can make pay rules in his/her favor, with a cooperative, instead of one person doing it, the majority has to agree to it. And no, there doesn't necessarily need to be an excetuive with coops, I challenge that claim and you need to offer evidence. At any rate, tt's better that majority of the workers are consenting to someone having "unfair" pay than no one else consenting to it when the business owner does it.

Also when a person chooses an employer they can quit to join that employers competitor.
Explain to me how that is feasible. Anyone who has applied for jobs should know that it takes many applications to different places before one even graces you with an interview, this has been my experience at least. The chances are not high that the competitor will hire you, and there's no guarantee the competitor is offering a better wage anyways. Wages can only be so high in order for the company to make a reasonable profit, if you still disagree with the wages when all companies are offering the maximum wages they can in order to make a profit still, then you're forced to settle. However, cooperatives make it so that the cap on maximum wage goes up because there is no business owner taking a percent of the profits, so instead of settling for the lower wage that capitalist businesses offer, you could have a higher wage from cooperatives.

Also, workers can unionize for better conditions.
Unions can also only do so much. Again, as I said above, if the company is already offering employees a maximum wage possible in order to still have a reasonable amount of profit in the end, then the union can't possibly negotiate with the business owner for a better wage for the workers. A cooperative would get rid of the business owner who is taking some of the profits, and it would then go to the workers who would now make more because of the business owner being gone.

Co-ops do not give each their due while a traditional business does.
I believe I already refuted this with my previous points

Co-ops are more corruptible then traditional business.
How is it more corruptible to try to corrupt majority of workers of a cooperative, than a single business owner? That doesn't make any sense. Remember: every worker has a vote in a cooperative for what the business does. It's easier to corrupt one person(the business owner) than it is majority of the workers of a single company. That could be dozens of workers we are talking about(and it often is dozens of workers with cooperatives as I pointed out before, whereas capitalist businesses tend to be smaller in employment size)

Co-ops [do not] harm the national economy.
When you distribute profit evenly across a company you disable opportunities for new company creation.
This doesn't necessarily happen in a cooperative. Some workers can be paid more than others in a co-op. This seems to be a strawman since I was never advocating for every worker to be paid the same, and I'm actually opposed to the idea.

This is why the United States, the home of capitalism, has the highest GDP by far(13.77 Trillion), while sudo-communist China only has 9.24 trillion GDP despite having almost three times the population.
Actually, a huge majority of the US's GDP growth happened since 1970(we didn't even have 1 trillion dollars of GDP prior to that) [10] and that was long after we gave up on pure capitalism. The United States has had a mixed economy ever since the great depression; we never saw such growth while we were purely capitalist, and no country has. Every country has a mixed economy of some sort; as you can see, no country ranks a perfect "10" in economic freedom [11] which would be what pure capitalism is.

What I said here seems to refute everything you've said for this part, so I shall move on

The effect of a failed co-op are [not] felt even more by the nation.

In a traditional business economy, business have a low success rate. This is a good thing. In a capitalist society which businesses survive and those that don't are decided by the consumers.This means that the ones that do survive are custom made for the consumers buying the products at the end of the day.
This applies to coops too. If no one is buying the goods of a specific coop, then that coop will probably fail. How exactly would a coop who no one is buying things from survive? What you said seems to imply that this idea only applies to traditional businesses, but you didn't explain why it doesn't apply to coops.

In a co-op the initial invests are the workers, and when a co-op does fail the effects are more dramatic. Instead of just one bad financial year, former workers not only do not have a job any longer, but have lost any savings they have built up throughout their lifetimes.
But does this happen in reality? You should provide factual examples of this, otherwise the argument all seems theoretical. I could offer a theory of my own: since the workers are the ones who are now earning the money that the capitalist would have been taking, they all have more money. They could, theoretically, each pull together and offer a certain amount of capital they own to keep the business afloat. Instead of just one rich guy doing it and offering a substantial amount of money, it is now a whole bunch of middle-class workers offering a smaller sum of money individually, but enough that could easily be enough to pay for the damages. Since cooperatives tend not to fail, as I've shown before, it would seem to indicate my line of thinking might be correct, or that there is at least correlation between this theory and the fact that cooperatives tend not to fail.

As for the Spanish government offering support to Mondragon cooperatives, this could easily be because they are worried that a big business would fail. I mean, the United States government often helps big businesses too(I'm sure I don't need to offer a source about the stimulis bills and other ways the US government helped big traditional businesses along, this should be common knowledge since we all lived through it, unless you're under 10, in which case you shouldn't be on this site anyways), so either way, tax payer dollars are being used to help out a big business if you have crony capitalism, or I guess, if we have an economy of cooperatives where success of them depends on government assistance, it would be crony socialism. This doesn't seem to be a problem unique to cooperatives, since a large traditional business also takes tax payer dollars, so this seems like a pointless argument to bring up since large traditional businesses are supported by the government too. Unless even small cooperatives are being sent tax-payer money, this point that con brought up seems to be refuted now.

Your first through third impacts at the bottom you listed are refuted by what I said in the above paragraph.

Impacts:
1) Capitalist businesses cause workers to be paid less than they could be paid if there was no business owner, as proved by how wages remained high in coops in my second round main argument, and what I discussed earler in this argument.
2) "Too big to fail" businesses seems to apply to both cooperatives and traditional businesses, so this is an impact my opponent can also use, but this impact would cancel out theirs if they name it, and vice versa
3) The capitalist business model makes it that a person who wasn't chosen democratically is in a position of power, one that determines whether you will be paid and given a means by which you can survive. I consider this position of power more important than government leaders, since this one literally chooses whether or not you will be able to feed yourself at night. Yet, we make political leaders, who don't make the choice whether you eat at night, democratically elected, but traditional business owners are not... seems odd. Bottom line, the value of democracy that we hold is violated by having traditional businesses.


Sources:
[10] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org...;
ImaWin

Con

I will start off refuting my opponent's round 2 speech.

1. How do Cooperatives and Traditional businesses compare?

He just says that Co-ops have a higher likelihood of not going out of business. That is not a way to compare two businesses. I propose we judge a business on its value. The point of a business is to provide a product to a society. That is why I propose we use the weighing mechanism of what will increase Gross Domestic Product. Overall? This point makes no difference to the society

Also, use his evidence as a Con voting issue, because this "more likely to succeed" attitude is born of playing safe in the marketplace and hampering innovation. The full reasoning with a link is in my round 2 speech, argument #3.

2. Can cooperatives be successful?

First off, on his Mondragon Corp evidence. He admits that it is in tenth place of the Spanish businesses. That means that there are TEN better traditional companies in Spain alone. Turn this evidence over to a reason for voting for the con.
He cannot say that co-op's are better than traditional companies when the worlds biggest co-op is governmental subsidized and is in tenth place in Spain.

Secondly, notice how slim the margins are between the "who has more employees argument." The difference is slim at best, with a strange over 6 under 6 employees per business, number. Also the data is from a very select group, France and Uruguay (which is a developing country that relies on small business to survive, rather then big business). Why couldn't he have proven his same point with global data? Or at the very least more than one developed country? The number is slim at best and it sounds like the numbers are cherry-picked from a small percentage of the global marketplace that uses co-op's.

3- Potential argument against co-op's

He claims four reasons why co-ops have the market rigged against them as a reason why co-ops are not everywhere.

1st- Banks loan to co-ops less.
This is because a co-op's are not attached to an owner who will have collateral if the business fails. It is not a smart decision to loan to a co-op because the banker will lose all of his money if the co-op fails. In traditional business, the owner has to pay up the collateral (normally property or cash) he backed his loan behind. This is not a flaw with the "system" this is a flaw with co-ops.
2nd- The government does not bail out co-ops
Cross apply the evidence about the largest co-op in the world, the Mondragon Corp, had to be subsidized by the Spanish government. The government really gives special treatment to co-ops depending on the country that the co-op is in.
3rd- Co-ops are not set up to compete with other companies.
Then why do they deserve to exist if they cannot compete? If a company cannot provide a service to consumers that the consumers want then the company deserves to go out of business. For example, If company A's product is overpriced then people will defect to company B's cheaper/better, and more competitive , product.
4th People do not know what Co-ops are.
If co-ops were good then they would be well known. You are showing false causality. A mostly capitalist market would quickly reform to co-ops if they were better. The most efficient survive and the least evolved do not make it through the consumers checklist. More people would then know about co-ops and then your problem would be solved. Co-ops have the flaw, not people knowing about them.

4 Morality of cooperative businesses versus traditional businesses

Clearing up concepts
1st- The idea that a business owner is unnecessary.
First, Business owners will always be a necessity as long as their is a system of greed. When a group bands together, like a co-op, then there will always be one group unhappy with the arrangement that the group democratically elected. If you want proof just look to the last presidential election. Those in the minority will feel cheated and will try to gain an advantage in the next decision. Workplace politics can ruin the workplace environment.

Secondly, the average grunt worker can never be expected to chose between economic decisions that people go to university to learn about.

Thirdly, extend all of my impacts about how the national economic state is hurt more when a co-op fails then when a rich billionaire loses a million dollars instead.

2nd- My opponent says that because co-ops exist, business owners are not needed. I argue that co-ops are inefficient because of the democratic principles it is founded on. If you do not have a central region who's goals align with his/her workers then you have corruption. Much like the United States system of checks and balances, workers and bosses have checks to make sure output and worker conditions are balanced. The alternative is corruption within the co-op because no organisation can claim that their workers have such a good intents as not to want more money.

3rd- The workers have no other options then their current employer.

This mindset is just plain wrong. This is why we have anti-monopoly laws that increase competition in the market. If you employer is not paying you enough then you should defect to your rival company that will pay more. Or find a new trade. A business owner is not some tyrannical ruler trying to suck their employees dry. The owner needs to keep his employees happy and maximize output. These two factors are a check on corrupt institution within a business, and co-ops do not have this because they have no owner.

4th-The consent argument
You consent to work at a place when you sign up. When you do that you have consented to the employer's wages or payment setup. You have accepted the hours you now have to work and you have accepted the fact that if you are not a valuable asset to this company you will be fired. If you did not consent then you would have worked somewhere else.

Now for defending my case so we can have a polished last round.

I am glad that you agreed you want to only talk about producer co-ops as it makes the debate about the idea of co-ops as a business owner v.s. worker controlled company debate.

Your style of refutation is unique so I will try to respond biased on the arguments you made against my point as a whole. I will do my best to mach arguments 1 to 1. I will number my opponents response to my case.

Morality
1. Not a problem with co-ops
1st- This style of argumentation leaves out my context so I will have to reiterate many of my points to answer your questions. I explained that the less then subpar workers would like to distribute the money evenly, regardless of work ethic. You end up with a system that rewards sloth and de-incentives hard work. For example, If I am a lazy worker then I will want a pay system that rewards everyone equal, while the hard worker will want pay biased on performance. This conflict between the sides always leave either the makers or the takers unhappy.
2nd- When the producer co-op destroys opportunity for advancement in the workplace, they are unjustly taking from the overachiever in order to keep every employee on the same playing field when everyone is due different things from their work.

2. People can fire lazy workers.
1st- In a co-op, firings are done by a vote. This can be time consuming and can lead to corruption. Workplace politics could have a rumor started by one worker to get back at another get people unjustly fired. Traditional business doesn't have this problem to the same magnitude because a boss needs good employees, and they cannot afford to let a good employee go.
2nd- A worker doesn't even need to be that lazy to cause drag on the over achiever. Even a average worker can great these moral issues when the majority of average workers vote for equal paychecks, despite the disparity between work ethic.

3 Capitalist companies are corrupt.
1st- Read above, I already addressed the check and balance system in this speech.
2nd- Business owner do not have pay rules, they get a percent of the profit.
3rd- I already showed consent above. Also "unfair" pay is resolved by the checks and balances set up.

4 The availability of jobs.
1st- the average person changes from many different jobs
"Today, the average person changes jobs ten to fifteen times (with an average of 12 job changes) during his or her career."
https://www.thebalance.com...

If you have an abusive employer then that employer will go out of business.
2nd- Anti-monopoly laws make sure that there is always competition to defect over to.

5 Unions
Unions can make another check and balance. In a co-op you cannot have a union because you do not have an executive to unionize against.

6 Corruption
Checks and balances make all of the difference in preventing corruption. I have show two checks for traditional business and co-ops have none. Democracy is not flawless.

C2- Co-ops harm the national economy.
1- New company creation.
1st- I was arguing that the loss of consolidation of capital reduces investment and ruins the chances for new innovative companies and you never address how a single, non-executive person is going to receive millions of dollars from a co-op without corruption.
2nd- you run off on a tangent that would almost never be possible with producer co-ops. When an average worker wants his wage raised he has to advocate for the money that is going to his harder working co-worker. He takes the money form the harder worker in the name of "equality" in the real world.
C3 Fail co-op Chill effect.
1- The pro ignores the point I was making, Co-ops are less innovative because innovation is risky. The impact is that this directly hurts all of humanity's progress.
2- The Mondragon evidence is pointing out how co-ops are risky for a government to let fail to the point where they cannot innovate.
3- When a co-op does fail, the debt falls to the middle class family. They cannot afford to spend as much and stagnate the economy.

Impacts were in R2 speech.
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Pro

1.
I propose we judge a business on its value. -ImaWin
Doesn't it make sense that if the business stays in business, it is offering products that people want, and therefore has value? If it wasn't offering things people didn't want to buy, then it would have gone out of business. Cooperatives generally offer what people want more likely than traditional businesses, and I believe this is because you have more people in the decision process of what to sell in the business. When one person does it, they can easily sell something only they would buy, while workers in a cooperative would do the same thing, the difference is you have more people doing that, so it's more likely that a higher amount of people want to buy the product they sell than in traditional businesses.

Also, use his evidence as a Con voting issue, because this "more likely to succeed" attitude is born of playing safe in the marketplace and hampering innovation. The full reasoning with a link is in my round 2 speech, argument #3. -ImaWin
Keep in mind that con didn't explain why the idea he presented in round 2, argument #3 wouldn't also apply to co-ops. It's a rather weak argument as I pointed out.

He admits that it is in tenth place of the Spanish businesses. That means that there are TEN better traditional companies in Spain alone. Turn this evidence over to a reason for voting for the con.
Considering there are more than 2.4 million businesses in Spain[12], 10th place is very good. You can't just dismiss the fact they are in the 99.9th percentile of businesses in Spain. And, again

...the worlds biggest co-op is governmental subsidized... -ImaWin
Did you stop to think that the reason it is subsidized is because it is too big to fail? I'm sure it wasn't subsidized until after it got so big. Every government pretty much subsidizes their businesses when they are huge, coops are no different from traditional businesses in that matter. Name me a large company that hasn't received government money.

This is because a co-op's are not attached to an owner who will have collateral if the business fails. -ImaWin
The business owners are the workers, I don't see why they can't offer up collateral between themselves. This isn't a good point since workers can also offer up collateral.

Cross apply the evidence about the largest co-op in the world, the Mondragon Corp, had to be subsidized by the Spanish government. The government really gives special treatment to co-ops depending on the country that the co-op is in.
My intent was that I was referring to the United States government, but in general, Mondragon corporation is probably the exception rather than the rule for cooperatives not being bailed out.

Then why do they deserve to exist if they cannot compete? If a company cannot provide a service to consumers that the consumers want then the company deserves to go out of business.
Coops DO provide services that consumers want. There would be no cooperatives if they didn't, and they wouldn't have a higher success percentage than traditional businesses if they didn't. My opponent fallaciously thinks that competing means to offer products the consumers want. Also, I specifically said "out-compete". Cooperatives generally do not participate in shady business deals in order to out-compete a competitor. They don't stiff their employees with smaller wages like traditional businesses, in order to offer products at a lower price. That's what I meant by that they aren't set up to out-compete other businesses, they're set up to cooperate with other businesses.

If co-ops were good then they would be well known.
That's not true at all. For example, Hitler is well-known and talked about in school all of the time, but he is evil. Alternatively, you learn nothing about Sweden in history classes, despite that they have a higher GDP/capita than the US. Sweden's economy is not well-known to majority of people. The government is biased in favor of capitalism, or at least a mixed economy. You've never seen a politician in the United States, at least, outright support socialism. Even in other countries that rarely happens. Cooperatives are not taught about in economics classes or anywhere really.

When a group bands together, like a co-op, then there will always be one group unhappy with the arrangement that the group democratically elected. If you want proof just look to the last presidential election. Those in the minority will feel cheated and will try to gain an advantage in the next decision. Workplace politics can ruin the workplace environment.
I don't think this would even happen. There are always plenty of other businesses to go to if you're unhappy with the decisions of your company. The reason the US has such a problem with this in their government is because it's not very feasible to move to another country, as it costs a lot. However, it can be more feasible to switch from one local cooperative to another local cooperative if you're unhappy with the decisions yours make.

Secondly, the average grunt worker can never be expected to chose between economic decisions that people go to university to learn about.
Business degrees or college education is unnecessary to make proper business decisions, it offers very little[13] Really, all you need to know is know what sells. As a consumer, you know what sells because you know what you would personally buy yourself. Also, the best way to learn is through trial and error. People can learn over time after making bad decisions to make better decisions.

My opponent says that because co-ops exist, business owners are not needed. I argue that co-ops are inefficient because of the democratic principles it is founded on. If you do not have a central region who's goals align with his/her workers then you have corruption. Much like the United States system of checks and balances, workers and bosses have checks to make sure output and worker conditions are balanced. The alternative is corruption within the co-op because no organisation can claim that their workers have such a good intents as not to want more money.
All of this is unsubstantiated claims that will be dismissed. In "theory" there is more corruption in cooperatives, but is that what the facts show? I, personally, could not find any studies on this matter, and so this point shouldn't be considered since no evidence was offered to show cooperatives are even more corrupt than traditional businesses.

This is why we have anti-monopoly laws that increase competition in the market.
Anti-monopoly laws are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, what I said would be true if we did not have them. Why have a system with traditional businesses that needs so many laws to make it work? Do you know how many regulations there are on traditional businesses? Those regulations would not be necessary on cooperatives, because cooperatives already do what the workers want. Workers, for example, would almost never vote to put themselves in unsafe working conditions, but if they do, then that's their choice and they are consenting to it.

You consent to work at a place when you sign up. When you do that you have consented to the employer's wages or payment setup. You have accepted the hours you now have to work and you have accepted the fact that if you are not a valuable asset to this company you will be fired. If you did not consent then you would have worked somewhere else.
It's hard to argue that you consented when your life depends on the job you have and it takes hundreds of applications before an employer hires you. People only "consent" because they have no other option, as other employers will not hire them.

Morality:
1. This assumes that majority of the people in the coop are lazy. If they are, the coop probably won't do well.
2. Again, opponent offered no actual proof of corruption in cooperatives, this is all conjecture.
3. All of this I addressed I think above.
4. Only 2% of applicants in a job even receive an interview[14], this means, on average, you have to put in 50 applications before you even get an interview, which isn't a guarantee to have the job. So, it takes probably over 100 applications before you even get a job. So, a person is more likely to settle for a job they don't necesarily want. In fact, the fact that my opponent pointed out should be thought about in a different way: why are those people changing jobs so much? Probably because that they are not happy with any of those previous jobs because it's impossible to get a job and an employer you actually want since you have to settle for the first job you can get.

If you have an abusive employer then that employer will go out of business.
This also seems to just be an assumption.

Anti-monopoy laws and Unions:
If traditional businesses were so great, they wouldn't need those laws or unions. If anything, the voters should ask why con brought up these points since it shows traditional businesses are not good to be without these things.

"Checks and balances"
And yet there is still rampant corruption among traditional businesses[15] and you have yet to show any actual corruption from cooperatives.

you never address how a single, non-executive person is going to receive millions of dollars from a co-op without corruption.
Why would a single non-executive person need to? Again, the workers can pull together and offer up money necessary for business.

I don't really have room to respond to any more of con's points unfortunately, but I think what I've said before seems to refute most of the remaining arguments.



Source:
[12] http://www.tradingeconomics.com...;
[13] http://www.forbes.com...
[14] http://careers.workopolis.com...;
[15] http://www.ibtimes.com...;
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.