The Take

Ratings: 8.13/10 from 24 users.


The TakeWe heard rumors of a new kind of economy emerging in Argentina. With hundreds of factories closing, waves of workers were locking themselves inside and running the workplaces on their own, with no bosses. Where we come from, a closed factory is just an inevitable effect of a model, the end of a story. In Argentina today, it's just the beginning. In suburban Buenos Aires, thirty unemployed auto-parts workers walk into their idle factory, roll out sleeping mats and refuse to leave.

All they want is to re-start the silent machines. But this simple act - The Take - has the power to turn the globalization debate on its head. In the wake of Argentina's dramatic economic collapse in 2001, Latin America's most prosperous middle class finds itself in a ghost town of abandoned factories and mass unemployment. The Forja auto plant lies dormant until its former employees take action.

They're part of a daring new movement of workers who are occupying bankrupt businesses and creating jobs in the ruins of the failed system. But Freddy, the president of the new worker's co-operative, and Lalo, the political powerhouse from the Movement of Recovered Companies, know that their success is far from secure. Like every workplace occupation, they have to run the gauntlet of courts, cops and politicians who can either give their project legal protection or violently evict them from the factory.

The story of the workers' struggle is set against the dramatic backdrop of a crucial presidential election in Argentina, in which the architect of the economic collapse, Carlos Menem, is the front-runner. His cronies, the former owners, are circling: if he wins, they'll take back the companies that the movement has worked so hard to revive. Armed only with slingshots and an abiding faith in shop-floor democracy, the workers face off against the bosses, bankers and a whole system that sees their beloved factories as nothing more than scrap metal for sale.

With The Take, director Avi Lewis, one of Canada's most outspoken journalists, and writer Naomi Klein, author of the international bestseller No Logo, champion a radical economic manifesto for the 21st century. But what shines through in the film is the simple drama of workers' lives and their struggle: the demand for dignity and the searing injustice of dignity denied.

More great documentaries

52 Comments / User Reviews

  1. carpenter

    After watching this doc the only thing came to my mind was,do the people in Argentina have some kind of short term memory lost?? Half of the country wanted to vote for the same guy who brought the country to its knee? that I don't get.

  2. prole

    carpenter, they didn't vote for menem, he lost resoundingly.

    it was so bad, actually, that he withdrew from the election early rather than face the shame of getting landslided.

    that said, the current leadership isn't much better.

  3. Pete

    Extraordinary program!! I wish more people (i.e. voters) here in the U.S would watch it because we definitely have that "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving this country too. Globalization is really only good for the multinational corporations which have no moral compass, or soul. Maybe all these millions of workers here in the U.S. should lock themselves inside their "plants" and start up them 'ole machines again! Whoo Hoo ... kinda gets the blood flowing a bit - although I'd rather just have a job though .....

  4. Hector

    Good on you Pete - the giant sucking sound will be a constant if these white-collar thieves can drag their investments from country to country - pulling dispensations from govts persuaded that white collars don't have black hearts.

    Gizza job - It's Yosser's cry from The Boys from the Blackstuff

  5. Nick

    I agree, ive seen some attempts to do this in Australia but alot failed.
    We need more support in the community and in the Countrys where jobs are being forced overseas!
    We need to take this theory, take a factory or shop or whatever, and run it by the people!

  6. Chris

    my neighbor was from argentina she would say how beautiful it was but more than it beauty i admire the strength and will of the people we might start getting stuff done in the us if we took to the streets like they do they put the fear of god into their politicians and police im sorry but most americans have lost their backbone

  7. milton

    My international business teacher is mad at the current administration. She supports the elite and the IMF

  8. santosh limbu

    truee democracy.......People power........

  9. Peter

    I would be so sweet, if expropriated businesses eventually got so widespread and competitive that the multinationals lost interest in using slave like labour. Just think. If the people had run it all along, how gigantic piles of money coulda been saved from the elites greedy accounts.


    If she think IMF is an instrument of good, she's an ignorant. "The Corporation" describes them better then this docu.

  10. chris

    What an utterly inspiring group of people

  11. Dodgy

    Its like I've swung the pendulum. After watching the doc about workers in Asia being demoralised to seeing this group take their jobs and pay themselves what's needed. You don't see a lot of stories where the little guy wins. Refreshing.

  12. Patrick Leonard

    I'm very impressed with this documentary. It seems like the best way for industrial workers to produce is through collectivism. Is it true that their productivity is higher than under the traditional system?
    Perhaps we in America can use this model more aggressively. (Not socialism or communism, but the microeconomic bulldog of collectivism, where each worker is a partner in the company)

  13. ralphie

    i did not know this..thanks

  14. Sam

    Patrick, that IS socialism, or a form of it at the very least. Lose the fear of that word America! Many parts of ur economy are already state-owned and run (although the public-private partnerships are slowly putting the 'running' part of that).

    Peter, the IMF has a long history of decimating economies. It usually goes like this... find a stuggling country, isolate it (in terms of intl. trade), push it to the point of bankcruptcy, provide a nice big loan that can never realistically be paid off, then impose all manner of political and economic reforms (that usually force subsidised imports at some stage) and leave the manufacturing sector in ruins. Oh, The Corporation is a very documentary :)

  15. Sam

    Peter, mis-read ur post... I thought u said "I think IMF is...".

    MILTON get her to read Chomsky!

  16. Winston Smith

    socialism is democracy taken to it's natural (and morally just) conclusion

  17. wpsmithjr

    I agree that globalism is an issue... but socialism, communism, democracy... none of these are the solution. The only form of government that has allowed people to get out of digging in the dirt for their food is a REPUBLIC... not a democracy. Democracy, rule of the majority, just leads to socialism and then on to communism, like Winston said. Once the people realize they can vote themselves largess from the government, it all comes crashing down... just like it is now in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

    Capitalism, with a constitutional republic, made the U.S. the greatest country on earth. But, somewhere around 120 years ago, when the federal reserve took over our banking system, the income tax was instituted, and we became slaves to an oppressive group of elites... we gave up on following our constitution.

    We're supposed to be 50 independent states, with the federal government providing protection to the states from each of the other states, and from outside forces...ONLY. They aren't supposed to be involved in energy, education, welfare, or any of the other 100 things they've formed unconstitutional agencies and departments to handle. They are supposed to provide the 3 branches, the military, and that's it. The states are supposed to be competing for businesses and people by providing low taxes, good working conditions, high wages, and efficient benefits for the citizens. If your state is not providing those things, you can vote with your feet and move to a state that is. The federal government getting involved with everything from our lightbulbs to our retirement is the problem with our country.

    And now they've spent us into oblivion.

  18. SquidvsBear

    How about congressional oversight of interstate commerce via the 10th amendment...? What about the unenumerated powers that are implied by the general welfare clause...? Don't pretend to know what we are 'supposed to be' that is something that was never fully established while our Founders were hashing it out, and its clearly something that is in flux today. There has always been, and necessarily so, a give or take between the states and the federal govt in an effort to ensure the right endowed unto us all by the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and those implied by the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War, womens suffrage, civil rights, child labor laws, all these things required action by the federal govt to make sure that we could enjoy the dignity we are supposed to enjoy under the institutions each state 'claims' to believe in. Without this there would be no 'United' in United States.

  19. soytcheck

    only natural is liberalism. Socialism is unreal and kills motivation. What about those who produce more but got the same as the others.

  20. seanmichael CONWAY

    Its comical to see the level of ignorance that exists among American people when it comes to the word 'socialism'. Take the time to read up on it. All systems are imperfect as the human element inevitably makes them so. However the capitalist system is without question the most destructive. Its effects on the environment and peoples quality of life is really quite appalling. Socialism has never been given the opportunity to succeed as it has been repeatedly undermined by the capitalist system which simply outsources many of its impacts onto wider world. The monetary system with the banks at its head are another obstacle to its successful implication. I highly recommend that you, the reader, read both 'Envisioning real utopias' and 'Making globalization work'. Trust me they will open your eyes. It certainly worked for me. The world MUST change course soon before its too late.

  21. from_the_bleachers

    "The Civil War, womens suffrage, civil rights, child labor laws, all these things required action by the federal govt to make sure that we could enjoy the dignity we are supposed to enjoy under the institutions each state 'claims' to believe in."

    People, people took action.. People very firmly, and at times violently, demanded these changes from the federal government. The federal government did not just give us all those things.

    Nowadays people have turned weak, we talk and talk and demand changes yet we are ignored. Power does not yield itself to the masses, history shows us that it's always the masses that aggressively FIGHT for their rights.

    The federal government is like any corporation, it's main focus is to preserve itself above all else, and hold on to its power and control over the masses.

    The only way to fight a government gone rogue like ours is with 2 things: Brains and Balls..

    By the look of it, the country has lost half of both things, if not we wouldn't be in this mess.

  22. fonbindelhofas

    at the end they let them to have some little factorys... what is it compared to silence and IMF titanic interests... basteds win :(

  23. wpsmithjr

    You can't use the "interstate commerce clause" anytime you want to, to make up any law you want just because commerce is occurring. The Bill of Rights, especially the 10th amendment, said the federal government should pass "no law" regarding all kinds of stuff and they even said, essentially, "if we left anything out, the fed gov can't pass a law about that either... it should be left up to the states and the people."

    There is no "general welfare" clause. "General welfare" is mentioned in the preamble as a reason for establishing the constitution itself. It's also mentioned in the law that gives Congress the power to tax the people. The law was established to give Congress the power to tax...not to suddenly say it's ok to pass a law regarding anything just because Congress can tax "for the general welfare".

    All of those laws you mentioned that the federal government passed could have been left up to the states. It was the PEOPLE'S OPINION toward civil rights that really changed things... not the government. People can change without a bureaucrat passing a law to FORCE them to change. Less and less people are smoking today because of EDUCATION... not because we passed a law against it.

    We have so many laws. It's simply ridiculous. Life isn't really that complicated.

  24. Moon E n V o L

    Sometimes I just want the world to end, but it is documentaries like this one that gives me hope that even after the collapse of world economies the people will band together to take over the responsibility of creating and making life work. To the people of the world I give my heart and hope for a future free from the greed of Corporate Banksters. There is a reason the poor out number the rich a million to one: The majority of folks have a true moral foundation to do what is right and good for all and not just themselves.

  25. Rainmaker

    How can someone in clear mind put socialism, communism, democracy and republic under ONE category? Then include mammals and some other unrelated stuff as well! Geez, read Wikipedia, if you haven't learned the basics in school.

  26. Rainmaker

    Socialism is a type of economic system, while democracy is a form of government. Think sometimes before you post something like that.

  27. Rainmaker

    Well, in the U.S. Americans did re-elect George W. Bush as well. In Russia, Russians re-elected Eltsin. Similar examples are in many countries. During an aggressive election campaign it's all about emotions, dominance on mass media channels, amount of financial support, budget, etc. Not so much about considerate and objective analysis or critical thinking.

  28. Rocky Racoon

    My understanding of the two is that they are inter-related. To me the economy which in classical terms included the word Political-Economy since it is a human activity, and is basically the manner in which we produce and reproduce as a species and everything is a reflection of that basic activity. I would prefer to live in a socialist democracy. Production has been globalized I don't know why the ownership shouldn't be as well. Imagine by John Lennon pretty well embodies many of the principles of what I view as socialism.Surely global capitalism based primarily on private ownership is the most heineous form of production ever devised by human beings. 2 world wars constant depressions-Starvation and death in the midst of plenty-it is not as if we do not have the productive capacity the technology to advance to a higher form of being-socially. We will never get their as long as the capitalist social order remains in power. The internal contradictions alone while it brings production to it's knees won't die on it's own especially with government's supplying it with blood transfusions from the general population and transfering it to the privledged few at the top-the "wealth creators" who managed to disappear trillions of dollars from the public at large on a global scale. And it won't die on it's own either not as long as any area of the life world remains to be turned into a commodity. The struggle now is the re-colonization of Africa-Libya is ground zero in that regard. I don' t think China Russia or India are going to let this situation stand much longer. China captures markets bringing roads and hospitals and technology to other nations in a win win situation in the pursuit of needed resources on the continent-The West does it with predator drones daisy cutters and cruise missles. And they may believe Libya was a great conquest but I think it was the last straw. Soon like Afghanistan and Iraq the Libyian people will view the west as occupier's not liberator's and the current civil war will continue. Niether they nor the domestic populations in the West can stomach much more-in spite of the demonization of these targets by the propaganda machines called the free press in our capitalist democracies. Imagine an economic system based on class antagonisms being called a democracy. An oxymoron if their ever was one.

  29. Vibeke Caroe

    well, is motivation only to get money and about getting more for yourself?

  30. Vibeke Caroe

    Peter gets a brilliant idea. He sets up business and manufactures his brilliant product. He makes money for his own needs and to pay his workers and other production costs.

    Paul sees that Peter is making a good living and also wants to make and sell the product, and so they would have to compete to sell.

    But Peter does not want to risk missing out on potential sales revenue, so he trademarks his product, so that no one else is allowed to copy it. Again his company is growing, producing more, selling more, making more profit.

    At some point the market stops expanding, but Peter is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

    He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs. So he moves the production to a low cost country, and he scores more profits again.

    But now some people in the low cost country discovers that Peter is selling the products at a very high price at home and paying very little wages to the workers there. They are able to think and calculate, and they are so poor that they can barely exist on the pay that they are receiving from Peter.

    One of them gets a brilliant idea. He sets up business and manufactures a product just like Peter's. He sells it in Peter's country, although at a much lower price than Peter,which is illegal, but he still makes a lot more money than he would working for Peter, so he does it anyway.

    But at some point he is not satisfied with the money he is making (because?).

    He concludes that he can only get more profit (because that is the perpetual indisputable goal of capitalism), if he can lower his production costs.

    And who is ALWAYS going to lose out? The workers - in both countries.

    Because that is the nature of capitalism when PROFITS are PROTECTED by regulation.

    There is no pure capitalism and no pure socialism anywhere in the world. Because even supposedly socialist/communist countries are ruled by - capitalists.

  31. Niccoleo

    Despite greed and any other human driven desires for more power or whatever you call it makes perfect sense under the pressure of competition to strive for that extra profit, even a fractional advantage in profit from his competitor would in the long term ensure "Peters" survival in a capitalist market.

    With the extra profit Pete could invest in technology which lowers the production costs and enables him to drive his competitors out of the market , if he does not do so his competitor will, and Peter will lose his business sooner or later.

    What I am trying to say is that we should not focus on fixing human nature in the sense that if Peter was not greedy the workers would not have suffered, or without human greed capitalism would be fine. The cause for this fascination for profit is mostly if not only the system.

    I have to disagree a little bit with you about the one that is always going to lose out, labor. Only under perfect competition ( practically impossible), when companies can not raise their prices because they'd lose costumers, only then, is labor the only victim, since labor is the only element on which "Peter" can increase his profit, and he does that through lowering its wages.

    However, nowadays far from perfect competition as we are He exploits not only his labor but also his costumers in the sense that we pay much more for goods than we actually should be, sometimes even labor is protected by regulations but the costumer is not.

    I agree with you on your last sentence though, last centuries socialism was a disaster, nobody wants it back , or at least me coming from the Balkans, do not want it repeated. Nonetheless, that is not enough of an argument to stop working for a better system.

    sorry for the long reply just felt tempted to write something after thinking about the "(because?)" you used :P:P

  32. Vibeke Caroe

    Thank you very much for a sincere reply! I must say that usually it is impossible to discuss this matter at all, without being hatefully attacked for being a communist and such.

    Changing human nature seems futile.

    There is no such thing as perfect competition, which would be the premise for perfect capitalism.

    All I wish for is a little after-thought. Like - do I really need more? Or do I just want?

    The senseless consumerism today seems to stand unchallenged. As long as there is enough to go around, no problem. I could not care less, if my neighbor wants a yacht or a golf course.

    But what compels human nature to care more about self-entitlement and less about community?

    I personally do not feel good, when I am confronted with other human beings living in poverty, hunger, despair? Especially since I do not want for nothing myself. Just seems unfair - what makes me better and more entitled than the next person.

    I guess it boils down to 'the human view': do I see people as untrustworthy, anti-social, greedy, and selfish by nature or as a product of environment?

    I believe that people are - by nature - constructive, active, social beings seeking meaningful lives. And if meaning is achieved, there is no need for greed.

  33. James Cox

    A wonderful visit with the people of Argintina. As mention by a character I look forward to the sequal.

  34. Z

    Wow... Those people live a very different lifestyle compared to mine. 'Eye-Opening'.

  35. Jake Mac

    "Globalization is really only good for the multinational corporations which have no moral compass, or soul." Sorry Pete, I have to say that you are wrong here. I understand that from your point of view it may seem this way, however, this is simply not the case. Yes production jobs in developed countries are moving to lower cost locations such as south america and china but statistics show that the benefits of this simply outweigh the costs. Someone always loses and that's just how life works. Globalization and the relocation of production allows for lower-cost production which benefits the consumer with lower prices and thus leading to an increase in purchasing power which the american dream is all about isn't it? It comes at the cost of lost jobs in the production sector in home countries which leaves people with a lack of options for other employment, however it is not like there are a lack of jobs in the US... Countless jobs are given to people outside of the country simply because the general populous does not posses the ability to do the work. So guess what, go get a ******* education and you'll get a job. Its as easy as that. Be happy production jobs are leaving the country so you can get a higher-paid, less remedial, more meaningful job doing something that requires brain power, or do you lack that too?

    Agreed corporations have too much power, I won't fight you there, but the answer to your problems is not fighting globalization and preaching for protectionism. If you got your way with that trade barriers would increase, restricting imports and exports, leading too lower economic growth and is that really what you want after a recession? Last time that happened it lead to the Great Depression. But hey, having a job putting the windshield on a corolla is more beneficial to society right?

    Go get an education so you can learn what the **** you are talking about and maybe your eyes will open just a little bit more.

  36. Sebastian van Dalen

    I understand you have great faith in economic models, and thus in globalization. I do not wish to comment on everything you said I just want to make two remarks. First I think you should not value everything just by it's lower prices or higher purchasing power, you should also look at the effects on environment and society, effects that are not calculated in the GDP. And second you should not have "faith" in economic models that always claim to have the best outcome, IF certain conditions are satisfied (like perfect competition, complete transparency, no transport costs!!!!!!) conditions that as you and I know are never satisfied. It's great to have the best possible outcome in theory, but guess what, we live in reality. Otherwise communism would have worked........

    I hope you are open to discussion instead of living under a western rock, because I think you clearly don't see the havoc globalization wreaks on the environnment and the society's of third world countries.
    And on the western countries for that matter, read Marcuse and understand the term "repressive sublimation"

  37. webman222

    I find that story is biased in favor of the so called 'worker'. Did the factory owner not 'work' and 'risk' their own savings to set up the factory and provide jobs to the workers in the first place...Its nice to take the side of the worker, but lets not forget, the owner took on the risk and put sweat and tears to get the factory started.

    It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don't the workers simply buy the owner out instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem more just for all parties involved.

    Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts - not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

  38. webman222

    I find that story is biased in favor of the so called 'worker'. Did the factory owner not 'work' and 'risk' their own savings to set up the factory and provide jobs to the workers in the first place...Its nice to take the side of the worker, but lets not forget, the owner took on the risk and put sweat and tears to get the factory started.

    It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don't the workers simply buy the owner out instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem more just for all parties involved.

    Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts - not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

  39. web dev

    I find that story is biased in favor of the so called 'worker'. Did the factory owner not 'work' and 'risk' their own savings to set up the factory and provide jobs to the workers in the first place...Its nice to take the side of the worker, but lets not forget, the owner took on the risk and put sweat and tears to get the factory started.

    It is the owners of the expropriated factories who are the victims here! Why don't the workers simply 'buy out' the owner of the factory instead of expropriating the factory by force, it would seem to make more sense for all parties involved.

    Workers, owners, land lords, machinery all have their place, and all should be compensated for their efforts - not just the workers. The important thing is to keep the factories running.

  40. Hanny Palmen

    For all those in favor of the owners. Rerun the documentary and listen more carefully to what is said about what they owe the workers ... No, the former owners had their chance and blew it, and be sure, they haven't ended up poor ... nothing to feel sorry for.

  41. Jessica Casey

    The government hands out all of these subsidies and grants of tax-payer money to these companies with no specifications as to how it is spent, and the business still gets run into the ground. You're bloody right these people have the rights to these companies.

  42. Michiel 'Kader' Witkamp

    hmmmm... you clearly didn't watch very attentively. the factory owners owe the workers months of salary. the factory owners attempt to strip the factories of assetts so as to leave the workers completely destitute.
    You are talking big global corporations, not small entrepreneur ship. I know the difference, because as a small entrepreneur I have to compete with the globals who dominate the market by force and by bribing politicians (i'm london based btw)

  43. Michiel 'Kader' Witkamp

    'economic growth' is based on a paradigm that we live on a planet with infinite resources. You clearly are not aware how much effort goes into setting up stranglehold trade agreements with 3rd world countries. the IMF and Worldbank ensure that 3rd world countries have to open their markets, while we the 'free market western economies' set up fences around ours. we set up so that NO jobs are available in 3rd world industries, APART FROM the ones created by western companies, who pay scarcely over cost-price to the producers, while making record profits on selling their goods to rich westerners.
    In a true free-market, those third world countries would have an equal change at exporting their OWN products to the west, which would result in profit being made by the 3rd world producers. However, we've set up tax-barriers where it's okay for the 3rd world to export their raw materials (hence all the oil-export, fruit & veg and the minerals come from 3rd world countries) but where the amount of import-tax on end-products (such as phones, computers, cars etc) is so high that it makes their products by default incompetetive.
    The only exceptions to this rule are companies that have a head-quarters in the US or the EU region. This is why companies like Daewoo quickly set up their head-quarters in Europe before the EU-borders (and with it the tax-barriers) went up in 2000.
    The current struggle within the EU is actually quite a good example of how badly globalisation works. It works for Capital (which can move freely and generate profits wherever they are to be made) but it leaves weaker countries with enormous trade-deficits.
    You should watch the movie "Life & Debt" about how IMF and Worldbank politics and demands destroyed local industry and introduced true poverty in Jamaica. I'm not being disrespectful, but the 'globalism works' argument comes from sources that benefit from cheap labour and resources and who try hard to down-play the true consequences.

  44. Hazxan

    Factory owners do not risk "their" savings in the factory. Limited liability separates personal finances from those of the corporation. When did a member of the wealthy elite last lose any significant money?

    The "sweat and tears" is put in by the workforce. Who ever broke into a sweat after a "busy day" investing? The main reward is taken by the owners. It is a form of rent. Getting paid merely for "owning", not "producing".

    I have no idea how you could ever think that somehow 'owners' are being short changed by the present system. In the real world,
    the past 30 years has been all about ever cutting the share of the workers, and giving it to the owners - and the totally non-productive financiers, of course.

    A factory without an owner will out-produce a factory without a work force every time.

  45. Guest

    No, they did not risk anything. People who own other people have no place in society. They are slavers. You are a m*ron.

  46. Guest

    Hugely wrong from another i*iot who has no understanding of the world and how people are exploited indentured slaves.

  47. Miranda Rota

    Small businesses ARE getting short-changed, the moms and pops businesses. The bigger businesses are NOT getting short changed. Haha, I agree with what you say apart from that! When will people pull their finger out of their ear and SEE what is going on ...not what's shown on tv and newspapers!

  48. Darris Hawks

    Why not buy out the owner? They are buying out the owner. The owner owes them more than 3 million in wages and are offering to pay only 500,000. AND the owner only built the business with government help.
    The workers are taking the factory instead of repayment of wages.

    Landlords don't have a place. A landlord owns the land that no one created.

    A factory owner has invested either capital or labor into the creation of the factory. A landowner has not done a thing to create the land. It already existed. Either the landowner stole the land from the community, or they bought it from someone who did.

    That's why taxes should be shifted off of income and sales and onto land.

    It's a public good.

    Income is private.

  49. Darris Hawks

    The workers are also moving for higher wages, so it should always tend toward making everyone better off.
    The reason that isn't the case is because of the private control of the commons.
    A factory owner should own his/her factory because he/she paid for it. Their capital paid for the labor and capital is a result of labor. Even if the capitalist didn't himself/herself labor for the capital he/she owns, he/she is still entitled to it if it was given to him/her freely.
    The problem is landownership. No one created land. It exists without regard to capital or labor. It existed before humans. It is the natural inheritance of all humans and all societies need it to function.

    When one builds a factory, one should rent the land on which the factory sits from the community. Each plot of land should be leased to the highest bidder.
    The money gained from this should be divided equally among all the citizens in the form of a Citizen's Dividend.
    Then, if an employer chose to only hire at low wages, the desire to work with that employer would be truly voluntary.

    A worker might decide it isn't worth it. This would increase the demand for workers and naturally increase their wages.
    Minimum wage hurts workers. It makes low wage jobs illegal even if the worker wants to accept it.

    Better than a minimum wage is a dividend equal to the average value of land owned paid to individual persons.

  50. flash321

    This destruction of the middle class is going on all over the world. I like the idea of countries, and each country providing for themselves.
    Globalists don't believe in that. They see borders as inconveniences. Then they claim patriotism? What a lie!

Leave a comment / review: