You open your argument with saying, in essence, that people hate their jobs and are miserable at their jobs.
You then argue that socialist firms are better for employees.
The logical inference here would be that socialist firms make for happier employees.
Is this a reasonable summary?
However, in the “Are socialist firms good for employees?” section, you do not give much evidence that workers in socialist firms are significantly happier. Instead, the paragraph says things like:
Giving employees stock in a company seems to boost their performance.[33] Research has shown that employees getting more ownership of the company is associated with higher trust, perception of fairness, information sharing and cooperation.[34] There seems to be a small increase in companywide productivity[33], while employee retention is boosted.[35] Perhaps capitalist firms could slowly be eased into becoming socialist firms by first giving the employees more stakes in the company and then expanding their participation rights.
These things, while maybe valuable, does not give that much overall evidence for life satisfaction or happiness.
Overall I am not sold that your argument-as-stated is sound, even if every individual piece of evidence is true.
Apologies if I misunderstood your argument.
You open your argument with saying, in essence, that people hate their jobs and are miserable at their jobs.
You then argue that socialist firms are better for employees.
The logical inference here would be that socialist firms make for happier employees.
Is this a reasonable summary?
However, in the “Are socialist firms good for employees?” section, you do not give much evidence that workers in socialist firms are significantly happier. Instead, the paragraph says things like:
These things, while maybe valuable, does not give that much overall evidence for life satisfaction or happiness.
Overall I am not sold that your argument-as-stated is sound, even if every individual piece of evidence is true.