Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

ai-updates.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–45 of 45 posts

Re: AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

#41

Post by xhkkffbf »

wolvesechoes wrote: post #37
xhkkffbf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the folks with these fortunes are the workers who built the companies, right? If there's one place that's "worked-owned" it's a startup. And the VCs who also ended up with stocks did quite a bit of work along the way-- as well as investing capital. We're not talking about widows with a pension who are just interested in dividends. This isn't some utility.

> If there's one place that's "worked-owned" it's a startup. Sweetie, it is called cooperative , not startup.

Odd that you're choosing sexist language like that.

Are startups not owned by the people who work there?

Cooperatives are more complicated legal structures, usually designed to unify a group of producers like farmers. The workers at cooperatives are often paid an hourly wage and nothing more.

Re: AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

#42

Post by xhkkffbf »

bygosh wrote: post #30
xhkkffbf wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that the folks with these fortunes are the workers who built the companies, right? If there's one place that's "worked-owned" it's a startup. And the VCs who also ended up with stocks did quite a bit of work along the way-- as well as investing capital. We're not talking about widows with a pension who are just interested in dividends. This isn't some utility.

no offense but it doesn't sound like you understand what worker owned means. you straight up just described capital owned.

Do the workers at a startup own shares? That means the workers own part of the company. If they chose to raise more capital, that's their decision. Even the most socialist leaning coffee shop will raise capital to pay for capital improvements.

Re: AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

#43

Post by JoeAltmaier »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #42
bygosh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no offense but it doesn't sound like you understand what worker owned means. you straight up just described capital owned.

Do the workers at a startup own shares? That means the workers own part of the company. If they chose to raise more capital, that's their decision. Even the most socialist leaning coffee shop will raise capital to pay for capital improvements.

A nice thought. But the early options/shares issued at a startup have been gamed to the point that only the principals can ever get a significant cash payout. THe rest of the employee shares are of a special class that may as well be called 'worthless paper'.

Re: AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

#44

Post by xhkkffbf »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #43
xhkkffbf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the workers at a startup own shares? That means the workers own part of the company. If they chose to raise more capital, that's their decision. Even the most socialist leaning coffee shop will raise capital to pay for capital improvements.

A nice thought. But the early options/shares issued at a startup have been gamed to the point that only the principals can ever get a significant cash payout. THe rest of the employee shares are of a special class that may as well be called 'worthless paper'.

That's really a different point. Most startups fail -- and it doesn't matter whether they're owned by the workers or some distant capitalist. And, yes, sometimes people are ripped off through dilution.

But the reality is that startups workers usually have shares and the shares make them owners. Whether they benefit or not from the ownership isn't the question here.

All you need to do is look at some union-run cooperatives that fail to understand that "worker owned" is not magic.

Re: AI Fortunes Are Reviving an Old Debate About Private Power

#45

Post by JoeAltmaier »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #44
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nice thought. But the early options/shares issued at a startup have been gamed to the point that only the principals can ever get a significant cash payout. THe rest of the employee shares are of a special class that may as well be called 'worthless paper'.

That's really a different point. Most startups fail -- and it doesn't matter whether they're owned by the workers or some distant capitalist. And, yes, sometimes people are ripped off through dilution. But the reality is that startups workers usually have shares and the shares make them owners. Whether they benefit or not from the ownership isn't the question here. All you need to do is look at some union-run coopera…

Non-voting shares? That you can't sell? How is that ownership? The rules for these shares seem to strip all ownership rights from them.
Post reply on HN