21–30 of 91 posts
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 benefits and tradeoffs of starting a tech cooperative?
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Business-Expanded-Updated/...
He practices what he preaches and hundreds visit his company every year to see how it works in practice.
If you somehow automated organization and payment through blockchain contracts and had a way to describe requirements by code, I think it would be killer.
It's fairly normal among workers' cooperatives to assign equity to people in proportion to how much work they currently put into the company. This is the basic premise, not some kind of new innovation. If you object, may I humbly recommend considering the alternate diagnosis, that it is you who is a parasite leeching off the workers?
That must be why this cooperative reserves the right to hire others to do their work and making a profit on that, and requires a year of 'apprenticeship' after which the current cooperative members will decide your fate. After all, some workers are more equal than others. Or did you in your haste to put in a veiled insult skip that bit of TFA?
Minor nitpick with the note about forming in Oregon vs Delaware - Businesses generally pay tax where they do business instead of/in addition to where they are incorporated. The discussion of corporate taxes also isn't particularly relevant to a usual LLC situation where all the income is passed through, and the members will just pay tax where they live.
In addition Delaware has a very complete body of business case law that is a major reason businesses choose to incorporate there. It's not generally for dodgy tax reasons. I will definitely concede that a lot of people start business in Delaware when they definitely don't need to because of some magical perceived advantage but there are real benefits for some businesses that don't involve ripping off your home state.
I also take slight issue with the note about the business not existing to make a profit for itself. Every business exists for the benefit of the people who own it. Obviously not all businesses are owned by the people who work in it, but nowhere is there a business that exists solely for the purpose of loading up a corporate bank account with no shareholder as the ultimate recipient.
The note as it's written points more to the distinction between big C-Corps and every other entity than it does to the distinction between business as it's done today and co-ops.
It's basically a justification for self employment rather than a justification for a co-op specifically.
Quick edit: I love the spirit this is written in but I feel like it's unnecessarily critical of the way businesses are formed today. In my experience, people who run small businesses think a lot about fairness, and just because that doesn't always manifest itself in all equal everything doesn't mean it's not fair.
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…
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…
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.
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…
> 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.
Start ups typically want large success, and are more pitching in for a gamble. What this person is talking about, and I imagine many co-ops are in general, is just want to exist as masters of themselves with a steady job. That's just my 2 cents on it, people probably have wildly different ideas based on who and what the co-op was for...
When you launch a start up, the best case scenario involves selling off large chunks of the company at every step of the way to your amazing success. By the end you and your original owners have a diluted share (and say) in that vision. Very different than, "we're all making steady pay with democratic leadership." Sure it's a matter of taste as to who would want which.