161–170 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Co-ops in the US seems to be particularly popular in agriculture.
Galois.com, pretty famous in the software correctness area, is kinda a co-op right, as it is employee owned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Socialism is an industrial co-op like this where workers are fairly paid for their labor. What is "fair pay" for labor in your eyes? Is it the entire surplus being generated? Why is that considered fair?
> Is it the entire surplus being generated? Yes. > Why is that considered fair? Because there is no value without labor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. Let's assume that the rest of the C-suite combines to give that number a solid 5x multiplier. How accurate that is is left as an exercise to the reader, but be aware that the CEO is almost always the highest-paid member of a C-suite. That would turn $116 into $580 per year. Spread out, that would be approximately $22.30 per paycheck if biweekly, or $24.16 if twice a month. All before taxes, of course. Real life-c…
> instead of dreaming of us all dining endlessly on the the fat of the C-suite. I thought the issue with such high/concentrated C-suite compensation isn't the envy (though that may be the case for some). The issue is that just by squeezing $116 per employee such a CEO can pay herself. Like if removing armrests from all employee chairs nets you a few additional millions of dollars, the temptation to do so exists. If t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Galois.com, pretty famous in the software correctness area, is kinda a co-op right, as it is employee owned?
Not exactly. Galois employees are beneficiaries of the ESOP trust that owns the shares, rather than direct owners as in a prototypical cooperative.
Why this structure? Is it more advantageous in the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You end up with ~$2300 more per employee, assuming they all get paid the same and there are 20 of them. Which still isn't much.
JP Morgan works in 65 countries, in some of them 2300 would be a year of salary. Venezuela avg salary 230$ per month Vietnam avg salary 277$ per month Lebanon avg salary 190$ per month Nigeria avg salary 730$ per month Pakistan avg salary 293$ per month
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think you are mixing up Communism and Socialism. Socialism is alive and well and working. Every major capitalist society today (including US) has a percentage of Socialism sprinkled in to keep it functioning. Pure capitalism leads to a brutish tragic world, so some socialism is added to at least keep people from outright starving and rising up in revolution.
Yes you're talking about hybrids of socialism with capitalism, which are absolutely the way to go. History has shown that nation-scale "pure" socialism (which in practice nearly always results in a flavor of Marxism/Communism) is even more brutish and tragic than "pure" capitalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tradeoff is that requiring all shares be worker-owned devalues the shares owned by workers, due to massively reduced liquidity. This situation does not necessarily benefit the workers since they have an interest in maximizing the value of their share.
How does reduced liquidity equal lower share value? Makes no sense to me. Case in point example: SpaceX shares are very illiquid but also very very much up since SpaceX was founded.
If that company is a co-op in which only employees are allowed to own shares, the only people I can sell my shares to are other employees.
In general, more willing buyers (who in turn know they can they sell those shares unrestricted in the future to any buyer), increases the people willing to bid on those shares at any given moment in time. (It’s the same basic reason that you’d rather have $100 in cash than $100 gift card for Starbucks.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been wondering if you could make it work in Silicon Valley for a small firm. Take 2-10 people that could be founders and give them the alternative of being the Nth partner. They’d need to bring in 1/N of the profit to earn their keep. I think it’s doable.
They already exist, but aren't especially common. As you point out, the challenge is always around revenue sharing. From what I have seen, they last maybe 5 years and then break up when people feel like they are putting in more than they are getting out. The productive difference between the top and bottom half of the N needs to be less than the extra efficiency the coop provides the top half of N. This isn't easy. E…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tradeoff is that requiring all shares be worker-owned devalues the shares owned by workers, due to massively reduced liquidity. This situation does not necessarily benefit the workers since they have an interest in maximizing the value of their share.
How does reduced liquidity equal lower share value? Makes no sense to me. Case in point example: SpaceX shares are very illiquid but also very very much up since SpaceX was founded.
1: Lower liquidity usually goes hand in hand with higher transaction costs, which means a bigger gap between how much the buyer pays and how much the seller walks away with.
2: Time value of money: Suppose some liquid asset can be exchanged for $X right now, and an otherwise equivalent illiquid asset can be exchanged for $X by, let's say, a month from now. $X today is more valuable than $X in a month, so no one is going to buy the illiquid asset today for $X if they could get the liquid one instead.