Live data from Hacker News

Every company should be owned by its employees

elysian.press

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#222
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…

Now please use the barista argument on what house wives should be paid.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe "taking over the market" is a bad metric, and we should be optimizing for making a company that makes the workers' lives better. The US cultural bias is showing here, as it's assumed that profit is above all else, and a company that forgoes profit to make workers happier must thus be less good. The vast majority of people in companies are workers. Let's stop optimizing for owner wealth and start optimizing…

If every company that offers goods or services prioritizes "worker happiness", by for instance refusing to excise unproductive divisions, then the result will be a world where everything costs more and takes longer. Not just consumer goods, but any sort of public infrastructure project, R&D, etc. If you think it takes too long or costs too much to build a school or fix a road in America these days compared to a few g…

Everything already costs more, because companies make crazy margins to make Bezos richer instead of making their products cheaper.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overoptimize on worker happiness -> underoptimize for profit -> company goes bust -> workers lose their jobs -> no worker happiness

Well, there are worker-owned coops, and they haven't gone bust, so how does that work? It's almost as if the workers don't actually want to lose their jobs!

Survivorship bias. You have to compare against all that have in fact gone bust over the same timeframe.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#225
I am seeing a lot of debate here about what Socialism is or is not. Lots of interesting points but none of them come close to this article by the Leszek Kolakowski (Polish Philosopher and author of Main Currents of Marxism)

It was written in 1956 but was seized by the censor and the student journal for which it had been written was closed down. The essay was then pinned up on a bulletin board at Warsaw University until - very shortly afterwards - the authorities took it down. From then on underground copies of it were circulated. It remained unpublished in Poland until after the fall of communism.

We intend to tell you what socialism is. But first we must tell you what it is not - and our views on this matter were once very different from what they are at present.

Here, then, is what socialism is not:

- a society in which someone who has committed no crime sits at home waiting for the police;

- a society in which it is a crime to be the brother, sister, son, or wife of a criminal;

- a society in which some people are unhappy because they say what they think and others are unhappy because they do not;

- a society in which some people are better off because they do not think at all;

- a society in which some people are unhappy because they are Jews and others are happier because they are not;

- a state whose soldiers are the first to set foot in the territory of another country;

- a state where people are better off because they praise their leaders;

- a state where one can be condemned without trial;

- a society whose leaders appoint themselves;

- a society in which ten people live in one room;

- a society that has illiterates and plague epidemics;

- a state that does not permit travel abroad;

- a state that has more spies than nurses and more room in prisons than in hospitals;

- a state where the number of bureaucrats increases more quickly than that of workers;

- a state where people are compelled to lie;

- a state where people are compelled to steal;

- a state where people are compelled to commit crimes;

- a state that possesses colonies;

- a state whose neighbours curse geography;

- a state where cowards are better off than the courageous;

- a state where defence lawyers are usually in agreement with the prosecution;

- a tyranny, an oligarchy, a bureaucracy;

- a society where vast numbers of people turn to God to comfort them in their misery;

- a state that gives literary prizes to talentless hacks and knows better than painters what kind of painting is the best;

- a nation that oppresses other nations;

- a nation that is oppressed by another nation;

- a state that wants all its citizens to have the same views on philosophy, foreign policy, the economy, literature, and morality;

- a state whose government determines the rights of its citizens but whose citizens do not determine the rights of their government;

- a state in which one is responsible for one's ancestors;

- a state in which some people earn forty times as much as others;

- a system of government that is opposed by the majority of the governed; - one isolated country;

- a group of underdeveloped countries;

- a state that employs nationalist slogans;

- a state whose government believes that nothing matters more than its being in power;

- a state that makes pacts with criminals and adapts its worldview to these pacts;

- a state that wants its foreign ministry to shape the worldview of all mankind at any given moment;

- a state that is not very good at distinguishing between slavery and liberation;

- a state that gives free rein to proponents of racism;

- a state that currently exists;

- a state with private ownership of the means of production;

- a state that considers itself socialist solely because it has abolished private ownership of the means of production;

- a state that is not very good at distinguishing between social revolution and armed invasion;

- a state that does not believe that people under socialism should be happier than people elsewhere;

- a society that is very sad;

- a caste system;

- a state where people can be pushed around, humiliated, and ill-treated with impunity;

- a state where a certain view of world history is obligatory;

- a state whose philosophers and writers always say the same things as the generals and ministers, but always after the latter have said them;

- a state where city maps are state secrets;

- a state where the results of parliamentary elections can always be unerringly predicted;

- a state where slave labour exists;

- a state where feudal bonds exist;

- a state that has a monopoly on telling its citizens all they need to know about the world;

- a state that thinks freedom amounts to obedience to the state;

- a state that sees no difference between what is true and what it is in its interest for people to believe;

- a state where a nation can be transplanted in its entirety from one place to another, willy-nilly;

- a state in which the workers have no influence on the government;

- a state that believes it alone can save mankind;

- a state that thinks it has always been right;

- a state where history is in the service of politics;

- a state whose citizens are not permitted to read the greatest works of contemporary literature, or to see the greatest contemporary works of art, or to hear the best contemporary music;

- a state that is always exceedingly pleased with itself;

- a state that claims the world is very complicated, but in fact believes that it is very simple;

- a state where you have to go through an awful lot of suffering before you can see a doctor;

- a state that has beggars;

- a state that is convinced that no one could ever invent anything better;

- a state that believes that everyone simply adores it, although the opposite is true;

- a state that governs according to the principle oderint dum metuant; - a state that decides who may criticize it and how;

- a state where one is required each day to say the opposite of what one said the day before and to believe that one is always saying the same thing;

- a state that does not like it at all when its citizens read old newspapers;

- a state where many ignorant people are considered scholars; the politics of its government will not allow you to discover this;

- a state that does not like it at all when its regime is analysed by scholars, but is very happy when this is done by sycophants;

- a state that always knows better than its citizens where the happiness of every one of its citizens lies;

- a state that, while not sacrificing anything for any higher principles, nevertheless believes that it is the leading light of progress.

That was the first part. And now, pay attention, because we are going to tell you what socialism is. Here is what socialism is:

Socialism is a system that ... But what's the point of going into all these details? It's very simple: socialism is just a really wonderful thing

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#226
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, is "only" being paid $34M in 2024. 26.6M of that was stock. In percentage terms it's just equity that he effectively handed out before as a founder and is getting back in return for growing the company even more. I don't see a problem with it, considering that the median employee takes almost zero risks and can leave whenever they want.

No, the risk for regular employee is higher due to downside vs upside. Once you cross some wealth threshold, it's not possible to lose everything (e.g. become homeless) unless you do something deliberately stupid like gambling or drugs. There's always plan B if you're rich. Like, rent out property or something.

> No, the risk for regular employee is higher due to downside vs upside

People start businesses and actually risk everything they have on them. If you only look at someone who owns and runs the biggest company in the world, you're just using the apex fallacy[0] to justify your perspective, and hoping nobody notices.

[0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Apex_fallacy

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#227
post #209
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> Worker coops often cut down on their individual profits in hard times to keep the boat afloat. Sure, I believe that. Do they do it enough though? Co-operatives were big in 19th century Britain; now they make up a small part of the market for most things. In particular the Co-op supermarket, though it's cute, is now small (6% market share). > A single worker doesn't move the statistical needle in a very large corpor…

Coop is not a worker cooperative. It's a consumer cooperative, owned by its members, not workers.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this work in practice, though. It's easy to say what you're saying, or go slightly further and say "let's stop optimising for work and start optimising for everything to be free". What's the actual plan?

I'd encourage you to Google for some articles on how worker-owned coops stay in business. This isn't a radical new idea that's never been tried.

Obviously they exist. But they are only certain types of business. How is a company that requires hundreds of millions of dollars before it's profitable supposed to be a co-op? Step by step?

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#229
post #47
post #18

I think the most surprising thing about trends in modern executive class pay is just how steep it is compared to the median employee. It makes me wonder why shareholders outside the company are happy with it. For example, the Boeing CEO made 22M in 2022 and 32M in 2023. I'd argue that he did a much worse job in 2023 than in 2022 but somehow got paid almost 50% more. Even Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, is "only" being p…

Hiring a Boeing CEO must be pretty hard right now because whoever takes the job is signing up for some miserable work (like testifying to a hostile congress and dealing with criminal liability on behalf of Boeing), and is likely to be blamed for decades of mismanagement coming to the surface now. Said another way: I’d demand a lot more in compensation to be CEO of Boeing than NVIDIA (or any other role for that matter…

Do you mean miserable jobs should be paid more than easy one ? There’s a bunch of position salaries to reevaluate in the world…

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe "taking over the market" is a bad metric, and we should be optimizing for making a company that makes the workers' lives better. The US cultural bias is showing here, as it's assumed that profit is above all else, and a company that forgoes profit to make workers happier must thus be less good. The vast majority of people in companies are workers. Let's stop optimizing for owner wealth and start optimizing…

Overoptimize on worker happiness -> underoptimize for profit -> company goes bust -> workers lose their jobs -> no worker happiness

Last time I looked at data, worker coops were less likely to fail than most other corporate structures.
Post reply on HN