In parallel systems, government companies were proposed for the very poor. In government companies it was stated that public sector is unproductive because no one cares. Co-entreprenership and co-franchising were suggested as ways to decrease income differences and unemployment rate. Is all this too confusing? In co-franchising there is 100% ownership of stores. Store owners cooperate for supplies discounts, common advertising expenses and paying for employee salaries at headquarters.
In co-entrepreneurship, an example was given with a high tech company that needs 6 workers in addition to the person who has the idea. There are two options, either they are employed or become co-owners of the company. If they are employed, the entrepreneur’s actions will have direct impact in his pocket and his company. He must care a lot. If the company does not survive, employees will lose their jobs but he will lose much more.
If all 7 become co-owners, we do have common ownership and the owners are also workers. Their actions will have collectively direct impact on the company. Each person’s impact will be approximately 1/7th , less than the case of a sole owner. There is danger that someone may try to take a “free ride”, be lazy and let others work. On the other hand, there are some advantages that were previously explained. The co-owners should care more than employees because if the company fails, they will not only lose their jobs but also time and money they put in and they may end up owing.
Co-entrepreneurship, co-franchising, remote work nets and reducing working week are level 1 measures. These could be sufficient and no more measures required. If some workers are left out and are poor, the government should step in to fill the gap.
In a government company that was proposed for the very poor, the owners are the taxpayers at the level of ownership. Many countries have three government levels and use different names. These are federal, state and municipal in USA. Let’s assume that the government company is at a state level which is in the middle.
Employees’ actions will not have an impact in their pockets but in the pockets of state’s taxpayers. Employees are taxpayers as well but the impact in their pockets becomes really blurry and small. It is much preferable if collective ownership is at the lowest level, that of workers. The hope is that it will be enough.
There are goods that by their nature can be owned only collectively at municipal, state or federal level. Examples are roads, airports, harbors, parks, schools, stadiums, hospitals etc. It is best if they are owned at the lowest possible level because there is more direct relationship.
Common ownership can take many forms. Large publicly traded companies have thousands of shareholders. This is common ownership as well. What makes this common ownership less problematic is the fact that the stock is traded. Shareholders care only how the stock is doing and can sell anytime they want. Time sharing in real estate is a form of common ownership. In multistory buildings, apartment owners have common ownership of the land.
Another type of common ownership is consumers'. Common ownership could make housing more affordable. One way is to buy collectively the land and get collectively a loan to build multistory apartment buildings. It will be cheaper because there will be no profit which is a substantial percentage.
All countries have plenty of public land. It could be used not only for farming but other government business endeavors in order to assist the poor. Public land could assist their housing by building apartments for the poor in public land that will remain public. After that there is a variety of ways it can be done.
One is to get a collective loan with government guarantee and another is the government to give the loan and get the money back slowly from low-rent like installments. Buildings last for over 100 years. After that, the building would be demolished and the land should go back to the state. If neccessary a new building will arise for 100 more years.
Government companies and government assisted housing can be in existing cities and towns. Additionally, new villages in public land could be created with housing, business parks and factories. Business parks and factories could be in different villages.