41–50 of 91 posts
Has anyone tried this in Germany/EU? What would be the appropriate term for this in the EU/Germany?
I've had the same ideas over the last few years, even the hard limit on the number of people. It sounds like they are just doing some paid consulting work and sharing profits. But what I would like to do, is that everyone only works around 10 hours per week on consulting work, and we spend the rest of the time working on our own app or website ideas. Then we could share in all the risk / reward. So it would be like a self-funding startup incubator. And if we came up with a couple of things that were really successful, then everyone could just retire, or at least switch to "maintenance mode" where we only release bugfixes and minor updates. No need to take over the world, I would just love to have a few little apps bringing in some passive income.
I guess that's the tricky part though.. what happens if someone wants to leave? Do they keep some shares and continue to share profits, or do they have to give up everything? I couldn't find anything in the linked operating agreement.
Is a co-op really best for tech work? If so why? Don't studies show that when there's a profit motive creative people perform more poorly than when they're just paid enough to make money not a distraction? I have so many questions seriously. How do decisions get made? What if it's really successful and people get lazy and decide to chill on a boat? So many more... where can I find a great argument explaining the bene…
Whoever did that study, they didn't interview me.
I mean, it's true that I care more about doing good work, learning new things, and making an impact. But I can do that on my own, and I've been self-employed for the last few years. The only reason I would join or start a new company is for the money.
> How do decisions get made? What if it's really successful and people get lazy and decide to chill on a boat?
If I started a coop, that would actually be our goal. I think it's funny that people don't admit this.
This is so awesome: https://feeltrain.com/blog/hello-feel-train/ I've had the same ideas over the last few years, even the hard limit on the number of people. It sounds like they are just doing some paid consulting work and sharing profits. But what I would like to do, is that everyone only works around 10 hours per week on consulting work, and we spend the rest of the time working on our own app or website ideas. Th…
For your idea where considerable income is expected to come from past work, I'd say it makes more sense to have ownership of the app assigned to an ad-hoc company that owns just the app, owned by the people there at the time the app was written. The coöp might take a hand in marketing the app and performing other administrativa, in which case it would collect a fee from each sale.
App_1_Co is owned by A, B, C, D and owns App_1. App_2_Co is owned by A, C, E, F and owns App_2. Coöp_Co is owned by C, E, F, G and sells App_1 and App_2 (taking a 10% cut) as well as providing consulting services.
Back in 19th century USA, during industrialization, the idea of working for someone came across to many as a form of wage-slavery. Going from farming or trade-skills to factories working, one gave up any control in their own worker rights and planning of their business. It seems fundamentally unfair that in most industries you don't have any real share of the company, or any say in the direction of it. People who con…
But
> "People who control those companies are solely executives or wall street share holders, not the people who spend countless hours making the company run and function"
You imply that you think workers should all own equity in their employer. That sounds cruel and arbitrary to me. How is it OK to dock Barista Bob's pay because a national ad campaign went badly?
In my companies, your compensation is tied to your responsibilities. Executives are responsible to make sure the whole company succeeds, so their compensation is partially in equity. If the company does well or poorly, their pay is raised or docked automatically. People whose responsibility is limited to their immediate job are paid based on their time, at a rate that (ideally) tracks how good they are at their job... regardless of how well the company is doing. The idea that I should punish a stagehand for problems totally out of her ability to control, or even visibility... or that I should reward an executive for working extra hours, when that's a normal part of her job... well that sounds like a terrible way to treat the people who make things run. Who would want to work in that kind of environment? Ugh.
Speaking as a several-times-over founder and C-level... you should try starting a company sometime, even as a short term project. I think you'd gain some new definitions for "countless hours" and "making the company run and function."
But the wall street guys - those people are leeches. All they provide is the money to run the company. Why should they get a say in how it's used?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People who control those companies are solely executives or wall street share holders, not the people who spend countless hours making the company run and function As an entrepreneur, it's actually pretty difficult to find folks who prefer getting compensated primarily in shares rather than cash. If you want to have significant ownership in a company that usually isn't much of a challenge.
I think that's largely a cultural issue though. We've trained people to believe in this extreme form of specialisation. They don't even expect to take on responsibility any more because they believe that this is solely the domain of management, owners and so on. It's probably going to take some effort if we want to bring the idea back that employees should have a say in the direction and leadership of a business.
And people don't like to get played.
Back in 19th century USA, during industrialization, the idea of working for someone came across to many as a form of wage-slavery. Going from farming or trade-skills to factories working, one gave up any control in their own worker rights and planning of their business. It seems fundamentally unfair that in most industries you don't have any real share of the company, or any say in the direction of it. People who con…
I think the reason things are as they are is that people don't care about these things. At least not enough to put their own time and money in exchange of it. I would easily choose to take a higher salary and enjoy not having to worry about managing company's risks and direction in addition to my main job. Also, evil executives who specialize in managing companies are probably more competent in managing companies and maximizing profits than random people in the office.
Is a co-op really best for tech work? If so why? Don't studies show that when there's a profit motive creative people perform more poorly than when they're just paid enough to make money not a distraction? I have so many questions seriously. How do decisions get made? What if it's really successful and people get lazy and decide to chill on a boat? So many more... where can I find a great argument explaining the bene…
> Don't studies show that when there's a profit motive creative people perform more poorly than when they're just paid enough to make money not a distraction? Whoever did that study, they didn't interview me. I mean, it's true that I care more about doing good work, learning new things, and making an impact. But I can do that on my own, and I've been self-employed for the last few years. The only reason I would join…
More like decades of studies. Read "Drive" by Dan Pink.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't studies show that when there's a profit motive creative people perform more poorly than when they're just paid enough to make money not a distraction? Whoever did that study, they didn't interview me. I mean, it's true that I care more about doing good work, learning new things, and making an impact. But I can do that on my own, and I've been self-employed for the last few years. The only reason I would join…
>Whoever did that study, they didn't interview me. More like decades of studies. Read "Drive" by Dan Pink.
> he asserts that the secret to high performance and satisfaction-at work, at school, and at home—is the deeply human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do better by ourselves and our world.
> He examines the three elements of true motivation—autonomy, mastery, and purpose
I totally agree with that. I guess I am in the very fortunate position where I feel like I can achieve all of these things without being an employee at a company. I've been freelancing for a few years now (sometimes very part-time), so I feel like I'm "out of the system", and I have no desire to become an employee at a company. I feel like money is the only thing that would make me change my mind (and it would have to be a lot.)
I admit that I am using a strange definition of "work". To me, work is something that is boring and difficult. When I am "working" 12 hours per day on my own apps, or if I'm volunteering full-time for a cause that I care about, then I don't consider that to be work. Yes, I know it's still work, but it doesn't feel like it.
I suppose if I found the right company, where I have a high degree of autonomy, I had access to a lot of resources, and I can learn and invent things all day, then I would consider that. But in my mind, when I think of "company", I'm picturing "yet another SaaS or mobile app".
And so I guess that might be the gist of these studies.