Vote Sizing Institute Real change from within.

Empowerment Inc. is an exciting new offshoot of vote sizing. Just as the Democratic Empowerment Party is the political arm of vote sizing (itself the social manifestation of the fair choice) - Empowerment Inc. is vote sizing's economic arm.

For each dividend bearing share sold, the investor also gets a voting share - while creating a second voting share to go into the 'employee trust'; which then gets re-distributed to the employees and vote sized each election. So if we sell you 100 shares, you also get an additional 100 voting shares, and generate 100 voting shares for the employees pool, to be vote sized every election. An interesting aspect to this dynamic is the ballast it puts in the lower paid employee's hands; and that potential investors will consent to having their voting power cut down twice as fast as conventional investments ... and that while in their half power is equal to investment in, on the employee side it's inverse to wages out.

And even though this website is focused primarily on reforming the political processes in society - there's definitely room for a discussion of the economic possibilities too. In order to simplify this process, and also to provide a way to look back at the DEP, we've decided to argue the logic for Empowerment Inc. on this page similarly to the way as we've explored the larger discussion of the DEP throughout the website - so you may notice that each of the headings below follow roughly the same progression as the pages in this website. The difference is that instead of addressing political implications, on this page we're going to explore how vote sizing can evolve as Empowerment Inc. and change the business world by showing it the best way to make money!

Introduction / Origins of Empowerment Inc.

The of Empowerment Inc. idea was hatched in January 2006, when I was asked by Julius Awafong, my good friend and fellow vote size enthusiast in Yaounde, Cameroon: "If you are asked to give some proposals on how vote sizing can be established and implemented in Cameroon, what would you say"?

This question struck deeply at the level of frustration we had be encountering there (and equally, here) regarding just how to present people with a vote sizing implementation that was capable of making an immediate difference in their lives, without just adding to the burden of ridding the wider political world out 'there' of corruption. Seeing as how very poor Julius is, and the limits of my own time resources, it became apparent that something simpler and more immediate than forming a political party was needed. Over the course of months, he, Tim Watts and I hammered out a rough outline of what kind of organization this could be.

Empowerment Inc. Vision

Some people are puzzled by how strictly for-profit institutions - like corporations - can find common ground with ideas like vote sizing. They raise concerns about the complete lack of political affiliation that corporations have, as compared to the almost complete political focus of vote sizing. Vote sizing, they remind me, is in my own words, not very geared for re-distributing wealth, but for re-distributing power. Wouldn't a vote sizing corporation become derailed and fail? The answer, in my opinion, is not necessarily.

Fist, we should address the claim that any kind of vote sizing implemented outside of regular elections, like in the business world, is not political. As I have tried to explain in the corruption section - politics runs more than a 2-in-3 chance of being corrupted (in this case, tyrannized) by patronage, greed, or both. In other words, unless tyranny is only linked to brutality (slim, less than 1-in-3 chance) then it's also connected to some kind of patronage or greed; and visa versa. In other words, corrupt economic arrangements are very likely to play a secondary role in the destruction of political movements too... Therefore, healthy economic organizations, which car invoke some kind of vote sizing of their own, are definitely linked to healthy political structures/parties. And so there should be no problem seeing a healthy, harmonic, independent business organization - like the one we're discussing - as an integral part of the larger political DEP/VS discussion.

Just as the goal of the DEP is to improve life of the poorer and middle class citizens through government, while leaving the market intact as much as possible for the wealthy; Empowerment Inc. follows the same principle, but in reverse - building an economic structure that, using vote sizing, allows for a business to function without needing to first affect government. The difference is not in the organization or structure, but in the goals: Power organizations are for regulating growth, wealth organizations are for creating insulation (mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services). So a good economic organization should focus on making a profit, while minimizing its effect on the power structures. The ultimate goal of Empowerment Inc. is very similar; to establish a successful market-orientated organization without it needing to first control government. 

Not surprisingly, just as good governments are shaped; so are good economic organizations - pyramidally, with no snaggly parts. The way to do this, we believe, is once again though vote sizing. Using vote sizing to elected company officials, it is within our abilities to design a business where those within the company who work the hardest, yet receive the least for their efforts;  are rewarded by the opportunity to shape the company so that both the investors and employees achieve their own  goals, make a decent living at a decent job; and neither feels at odds to the other. Any company that 1) grows off of investment , 2) returns investment, and 3) has the least paid workers controlling the direction forward - is a political vehicle.

Formulas - Different Ways to Empower Financial Organizations with Vote Sizing

In terms of financial structures which could become models of vote sizing, there are lots to choose from - communes, co-ops, partnerships, syndicates, associations, groups, societies, organizations, agencies, guilds, networks, unions, multi-level markets, etc. Of course, there are no set-in-stone lines evenly dividing all these different distinctions, as well as different overlapping goals; but so long as they try to implement vote sizing reforms in some way, then they are all leaning in the same direction - towards economic development through employee empowerment.

However, on this page we're going to focus on the vehicle to implement vote sizing as a for-profit corporation (with a few small but special clauses which we'll get to soon). The corporate structure suits our purposes the best for a few reasons. First, corporations are self-regulating closed system; and the overall measure of their success is easy enough to calculate - profitability. By eliminating any overt political motives, (for example, co-ops or communes are often focused more on providing a source of employment rather that a business which will return profit to investors) Empowerment Inc. can appeal to its' investors true desires - a return on their investment. Although everybody has their roles to play in this exercise, and the goal of the employees is somewhat different (uniting to form a company that helps their communities, pays good wages, provides quality jobs where they they can learn and learn from making mistakes, benefit from good management, and allows as many people as possible to participate in the decision making process) ultimately Empowerment Inc. needs to answer to its investors, and leave behind a more prosperous world than it found.

Secondly, under the 'uncaring and ominous' corporation banner Empowerment Inc. can demonstrate that even the most profit-driven organizations can benefit from empowering their base; thereby setting an example for even the monoliths to follow.

Thirdly, corporations are by far the most common economic organizations, and the easiest to set up.

Finally, corporations already make use of things like voting shares, a board of directors, employees, investors, and dividend shares; and therefore provide an accurate portrayal of all the vying interest that people have - while also offering the clearest way to analyze results. It is with voting shares that the company is hopefully led towards success; and the dividend bearing shares to reward the investors for their confidence - which is similar to the way government works with it's own currency and votes.

What Empowerment Inc. Isn't

Empowerment Inc. isn't in any way tied to the Democratic Empowerment Party. Although the idea of running membership in the DEP as some kind of profit-making business venture is very intriguing and, in my opinion, quite viable; political parties are not intended to make money - but to make power. By trying to connect the two, even in a vote sizing way, we by our on very definition, become the exact same corruption that we can read about in the Issues section of this website. Political parties primarily designed to bring wealth to people, any people, are corrupted by wealth. Political parties that bring better quality of life to people through fair laws and enforcement are pure and healthy. It's not that the DEP can't make people rich, it's that if this becomes it's goal than it's obviously not doing what it was intended - which is to provide a way for people without wealth to find satisfaction. As with the DEP, the task for us here isn't to find reasons tie wealth and power - the DEP and Empowerment Inc. - together, but to see that even though they both operate in the same way; paradoxically they can do so with their own separate goals. This is the positive force of the fair choice at work - that regardless of whether it's used to achieve wealth or power, everyone can use it to be happy.

Another thing that Empowerment Inc. isn't is threatening; for even though it proposes a brand new business model - everyone ought to be okay with that so long as it provides valuable goods and services, good jobs, and a return on investment. The fact that is has a very unconventional internal structure shouldn't bother too many economists, academies or regulators the way that the DEP seems to do. Being business orientated and innocuous, instead of doing something that will really draw government heat and put people in danger, Empowerment Inc. does the exact opposite - because it's a separate economic/business organization that creates a primarily profit-driven immediately tangible service or product; it's able to solicit a much more positive reaction than the skepticism and hopelessness that the DEP is usually greeted with.

In addition, on the day-to-day basis, Empowerment Inc. doesn't have to function any differently than a regular corporation. In other words, we don't need all kinds of committees and special votes in order to have vote sizing leave it's mark. It's not like the employees need to vote on everything. In fact, the only time when vote sizing needs to come into effect is during the annual elections. The result is that during the rest of the year, Empowerment Inc. will probably look and function a lot like the companies we see now.

Finally (in regards to the version of Empowerment Inc. that I, Steve Glickman, endorse on this page) There are no recognized 'type of employee' ways to size votes. The size of employees votes does not hinge on whatever age, gender, nationality, station, race or certificates people may hold - instead only by factoring inversely to their $/hr income can we calculate the size of their vote. As with the method of vote sizing promoted by the DEP in political elections; rather than trying to go by some disputable subjective criteria, votes are sized in order to favor those employees with the smallest $/hr wages - so when the company's collective of employees have to vote on something, those who get paid the least have the most say.

Issues Confronting Empowerment Inc.

In order to responsibly grasp the function of Empowerment Inc., we need to first accept that once the project begins, there are no restrictions over what kind of decisions voters can make and where it might go. Empowerment Inc. is an experiment, not a mandate-driven organization. The goal is to see it work, make a profit while keeping it's employees and customers happy - but there's no real way of second-guessing what it can do. For example, if this collective run by it's lowest paid employees ends up running a polluting or exploitive business, all the investors can do is whine, and try to pull out knowing that at least they gambled on the more optimistic side of human nature. Likewise, if the employees, especially the least-paid ones, become disgruntled and one year vote on liquidating the entire project and taking all the investment capital for themselves, screwing the investors, then that's exactly what will have to be. The only option that the investors have is to just try again in a somewhat different arrangement, or else give up entirely on need-based vote sizing collectives.

Empowerment Inc.'s very strength comes from it's vulnerability - the potential that the workers have to at any time legally dissolve the company and split the booty. Our kind of vote sizing organization leans very heavily upon the strengths of the employees to make good decisions. Still, we may also find that the dire predictions about human nature (coming mostly from the elite) preferring a quick buck over co-operation, and that the janitor would rather vote to liquidate assets over ensuring their own proper health care; then there's nothing we can do to stop it. Vote sizing can just as easily amplify mutual trust, as lack of trust.

Nuts & Bolts / Feasibility

In order to ensure the highest possible likelihood of success, Empowerment Inc. needs to be designed from the ground up just as much to attract investment and reward investors as to give good jobs to people. To keep it simple, all we need to do is take the existing framework of financial organizations like corporation and put in a few additions to it's shareholder agreement. The overall goal of these points is to try to balance the investors role with the employees. This is not a new idea, as recently many corporation have tried to tie their employees in the their success with offerings of shares; however, Empowerment Inc. takes a different tact by instead trying to accentuate the differences between the two by applying vote sizing to this corporation's voting shares and dividends bearing shares. The skill will have to be in establishing a balance to avoid disenfranchise people who hold either kind of share or the other. Yet while gently tipping the corporate model towards employee empowerment and participation; we'll naturally need acknowledge reality - and build in safeguards to encourage investment...but hopefully still only enough to diminish, not destroy, vote sizing's effect.

The result of these policies (below) creates a very interesting dynamic over time: As the company grows and expands, and dividend-bearing shares are created and sold to investors, more voting shares are created to distribute amongst the employees, continually diluting the power of investors and tipping the balance back in favor of the increasing amount of employees. New investors increase the power of the employees! In other words, although the pool of employee voting shares grows, the original investor's do not. So built into Empowerment Inc. is the inescapable fact that no matter what happens down the road, whenever it tries to attract investment and bring more money in it will automatically be diminishing the power of the existing investors and delegating them to strictly "in-it-for-the-money" position.

Taking Action - Putting our Money where our Mouth Is

Undoubtedly, we can find you many economists, politicians, and academics to cast doubt on Empowerment Inc.'s ability to survive for long in the marketplace. But rather than endlessly debate it's merits and potential, we'd like to do something concrete to prove or disprove it. Therefore, we're willing to put up our own money to launch Empowerment Inc. off the ground!  So if you have any ideas of what a good Empowerment Inc. business venture might be, send your proposal to Business_Ventures@VoteSizing.org and we'll look it over and get back to you. There's no need to start it off complicated - it should begin with a modest mission statement, director, secretary and about 2-6 full/part-time employees. Everyone involved will need to understand the objectives and mechanics of Empowerment Inc. and be trustworthy. Remember, we here are fulfilling the role of investors, not good Samaritans; so don't appeal to our 'better half' or expect any charity. Should this project fail, then so be it; our investment is more of a lottery ticket than anything else. That said, we're not too willing to invest in a company whose mission statement involves exploitive or indolent practices. Good luck!

Expectations

Like any business venture, this Empowerment Inc. project is not an obligation, but an experiment: Can investors get enough wealth to remain in a business which keeps putting more-and-more power into the hands of the employees? If the project fails because it wasn't designed properly and can't support itself financially, we should quite willing to let it do so as proof that vote sizing either need refinement, or perhaps just isn't such a good idea. Like any 'good' business, Empowerment Inc. needs to pay for itself, and to grow by attracting investment - and the only way to attract investors is by showing them that it's profitable; and not because it's somehow their duty. It should only ever request of existing investors that they re-invest their dividend payments. If their money doesn't turn a profit, there's no good reason, including guilt, to expect them to invest more. Because vote sizing plays an integral part in the internal organization of the company, this satisfying of investors need not be at odds with the companies chosen field in the market. In fact, a vote sizing Empowerment Inc. ought to be able to do almost anything that any other corporation does already... only much better for its investors, employees, clients, customers and the general public.

So far, we've been careful to design it as conventional as possible while still integrating the radicalism of vote sizing during elections. It's quite possible that when looked at the day-to-day operations, Empowerment Inc. will look almost identical to the way companies do today. Executives will still get higher wages, the employees will do all the work, and investors get dividends for doing nothing by having faith and money. It will need to continually reconcile the two different ways that the company rewards; first through wages, and second trough dividends - all while turning a profit and planning for the future. The only difference, which we've spoke of before, is the inescapable catch that there will be a lot more trust needed to keep it from imploding.

However, this same catch can be a positive force - as it builds incredibly strong ties between the actions and attitudes of the workers and the reputation for the company. The difference between Empowerment Inc. and the traditional kind of corporation is this incredible amount of mutual trust both fueling it and needed for it to work. It the employees do anything that even resembles screwing investors, then they can expect to never again receive outside investment! So long as the workers do not do vote for self-destruction, they insure both their reputation and Empowerment Inc.'s continued growth.

Additionally, we'll hopefully find out fairly fast that the workers are not just in it for the money (otherwise, they'd be investors), and exercise their power productively and wisely. If they can keep the investors happy by paying dividends; then the investors ought to learn that they are actually really only in it for the money - and they will in turn learn not to dictate the company's direction - and rather let the employee's have control.

Behind any vote sizing discussion, whether political or economical, is the desire to believe in the positive aspects of human nature blooming if given the chance. The question becomes whether people - and especially poorer people - have the inclination to make sound economical sacrifices for their own greater good. This mentality has not really had a chance to express itself in the marketplace, and in our corrupt society we should expect to not see coming from the elites, economists or academics. But we in the DEP think that workers are capable of seeing the bigger picture and how the Empowerment Incorporated scheme can work (... as they are the bigger picture). To the employees, so long as they continue to exercise their power respectively, the bigger picture becomes is a secure, well paying, safe, and dignified job; growing and offering advancement. And just as these people would not hate and sabotage their work if they had a real say in the direction of the company, how it rewards people, and how it treats them - they would integrate this policy into the function of the company as a whole and practice more environmentally friendly and socially responsible practices. Employees get their wages, and control over the companies direction, and hopefully a job that satisfies them.

If it proves successful, Empowerment Inc's least difficult task will be growth. Just as any business that continues to reward investors, continues to attract investors; an equally strong attraction will come from the labor side. Empowerment Inc. should have no problem recruiting talent; as the weighted vote encourages people to want to work for the company, because they get to improve their working conditions; and grow with it. In fact, a quite large factor in determining Empowerment Inc.'s survival will be who it chooses to hire - as these new workers are much more than just cogs in a machine - they are members in a vote sizing community. 

All the experiment has to do is not go broke in a few months and (with a little help) it will generate it's own publicity. And if a few thousand dollars can keep Empowerment Inc. afloat long enough to survive a few years, and perhaps even grow; then the fact that it's done with vote sizing ought to interest investors.

We in the DEP think that we are what we believe; and that Empowerment Inc. is a way for everyone to realize their full potential and be materially satisfied. And, since just as with the politics of vote sizing; poorer and middle class people can utilize their precious capacity to figure out how to get by better on less - which, in the marketplace, is called efficiency and is one of the highest valued commodities.