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

Every company should be owned by its employees

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 1001 posts

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#171

Post by coderatlarge »

f6v wrote: post #125
dash2 wrote: post #94

Employee stock options are not a new idea, obviously. If the story is "every company should offer stock options to its employees", then sure, that's often a good business plan. The reason not every company does it to all its employees is probably that for those employees, it wouldn't affect incentives much and it would make payment subject to the vagaries of the stock market. Your barista at Starbucks is not going to…

> note that you are calling for a restriction on workers' rights: they have to be given part of their pay as stocks No matter the mental gymnastics, that’s how it already works in big tech. You can view the stock grant as “incentive”, but you can’t refuse it and take cash upfront.

You can generally negotiate for more cash instead of a stock grant. Of course you have to accept the current price. I’ve done it and lost a lot :)

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#172

Post by [deleted] »

roughly wrote: post #101
bpodgursky wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to be rude but you have no idea what you are talking about and clearly have 0 insight into the day-to-day of an actual CEO. It's fine to argue that a particular CEO is underperforming, it's often true, but very few of them are "underworking" by any reasonable definition.

How’s this for a definition: the average CEO gets paid 350x what the average worker gets paid, so unless they’re generating 350x the value of the average employee, they’re underworking.

[deleted]

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#173

Post by konschubert »

swagasaurus-rex wrote: post #139
konschubert wrote: post #32

How about every employee instead gets money every month, and then can go out an buy shares in any company they want, their own or others?

Shares of the company they work for would incentivize them to care about the company. Shares of other public companies means no skin in the game. A day trader cash out whenever they want and wipe their hands clean of any adverse effects made by the company in the name of growth.

It's true, which is why I think it's good to make shares part of the compensation.

That being said, employees already have skin in the game because they want their company to survive so they keep their job. When a company goes belly up, employees with shares are worse off than those that bought shares in other companies instead.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#174

Post by jblezo »

irusensei wrote: post #127

If I lived in the authors socialist lalaland and had a good marketable idea the first thing I would do is to and start my company in another country. Maybe that’s why they’ve build a wall to keep people in.

Moving to another country is a good idea as an individual. However, for a nation as a whole, nothing is easier but building rich people: Leave, and somebody else will take your place.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#175

Post by dgb23 »

dash2 wrote: post #94

Employee stock options are not a new idea, obviously. If the story is "every company should offer stock options to its employees", then sure, that's often a good business plan. The reason not every company does it to all its employees is probably that for those employees, it wouldn't affect incentives much and it would make payment subject to the vagaries of the stock market. Your barista at Starbucks is not going to…

I've read studies about workers coops and some of them somewhat contradict what you say in your last paragraph, specifically (b). Worker coops often cut down on their individual profits in hard times to keep the boat afloat.

I think ultimately a company creates and maintains a culture, regardless of the legal structure. Maintaining a good culture requires effort and especially a sensible, trusting image of humanity.

When we talk about the crass gap in compensation and power between workers and owners or executives, then we often hear the excuse that much of the compensation at the top is from stocks (even though that is a very incomplete picture). The big bosses can't just sell their stock to increase wages is the narrative, but they _could_ pay some of that stock as additional compensation.

A single worker doesn't move the statistical needle in a very large corporation? For one, the same fallacy comes up with voting. Secondly: This notion that people are rational robots who only optimize their profits and then also calculate the statistical impact of every of their actions is not just too theoretical, it's just wrong. Loyalty, trust and engagement are things you earn and maintain. A generous compensation (including stocks) can be a part of that.

An additional approach is to decentralize and enable partial ownership of franchises. Now suddenly the needle can be moved, day by day and year by year.

But again, the legal structure is just part of it all. I think it starts with the image of humanity, the culture and a long term strategy that incorporates all participants of a company. The details fall into place after that.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#176

Post by t-writescode »

dools wrote: post #68

Worker co-ops and ESOPs are already available as business structures. If they’re better, they will be more common, it’s as simple as that. Mandating employee ownership is ridiculous. In terms of policy I think a cap on revenue per employee for a privately held company and a cap on individual ownership is a better solution to reducing income inequality. That and eliminating involuntary unemployment so that companies h…

> If they’re better, they will be more common

Unfortunately, the word "better" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Better for the employees is a world of difference compared to "better at getting funding to start a business", "better at getting Venture Capitalists or Angel Investors or Banks" interested.

It takes working two jobs, being independently wealthy or getting outside help to start a company, and most of that outside help very likely doesn't want employee owned.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#177

Post by freilanzer »

sgammon wrote: post #75
rendaw wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What risk does Jensen Huang take and why can't he leave whenever he wants?

Are you kidding?

If I earn 30 million a year, I have next to no risk and can retire anytime I want. Hell, I could retire after the first quarter.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#178

Post by coderatlarge »

stavros wrote: post #128
jrflowers wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like this caricature of the spoiled entitled employee because it completely ignores the concept of shareholders having a say in governance. If stocks were only a proxy for money and nothing else the example would be spot-on.

> If stocks were only a proxy for money and nothing else the example would be spot-on They are, in the modern startup world that HN is mostly in. That's why commenters here don't remember there are voting shares.

What are some corporate votes that you feel wider employee ownership would have improved?

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#180

Post by dash2 »

cess11 wrote: post #146
dash2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much dislike these threads where two people act like sockpuppets of a single not-very-advanced llm, agreeing with each other's views which are invariably exaggerated, uninformed and cynical. I've been seeing more of them recently; if you see one, downvote it. American capitalism has lots of problems. The idea that CEOs "almost always" have no real-world experience is hardly worth arguing against: "almost alway…

Sorry, I don't mean for my views to hurt your feelings. I find it obvious from the context that they were referring to celebrity CEO:s in global corporations and not Mom or Pop in some small mom-and-pop corner store. When I look at en.wikipedia on Huang it seems he graduated into a managing role and then founded Nvidia. By "real-world experience" I'd mean experience as a worker, but I can't answer for the person you'…

Huang started as a chip designer and then founded a company developing chips. What other kind of work experience would be relevant? AI contains scams, but also obviously important real progress; your points about war and surveillance are pure mood affiliation and irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Post reply on HN