When I first saw this, more than money, I thought about voting rights. You shouldn’t need a CEO, direction of the company would be all about shareholders voting and bringing ideas.
Every company should be owned by its employees
301–310 of 1001 posts
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> ...what house wives should be paid. House wives are often very well compensated. They have a home they don't pay for. They often have a bank account they can use to cover expenses (effectively direct deposite). The entire reason alimony exists is an acknowledgement that she has effectively been getting that benefit from the marriage and is not prepared to abruptly lose it in a divorce even after splitting the asse…
Domesticated animals are also housed and taken care off very well. Their appearance is beautiful and they are very grateful to their masters. The circus lion is bred and trained from birth not ask too many questions. But once you give the circus lion access to the internet, sooner or later the lion is going to ask why am I jumping through hoops? It just take one of them to find a better answer and a better purpose in…
I'm sorry but how many men do you think enjoy the work they do in order to provide for their family but do it anyway in service of their family?
Your analogies are all over the place, like a dog's life is similar to a circus tiger?
A lot of women find that they've been sold this lie that getting a corporate 9-5 is more empowering than caring for their children or even having children at all and are going back to traditional roles for a reason.
Truth is few people men or women find a way to support themselves that is meaningful and most men or women if given the choice of not working at all and just spending time with family while financially well off would take that in an instant
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing some entities, often private equity or similar corporations buying assets, often to rent, sometimes just to park, being able to buy, and the general public being able to afford to buy. In many desirable metro areas, you need two high incomes (two people in tech or lawyers or finance) to be able to afford to buy anything. What about everyone else?
Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area? That sounds infeasible with so few of them. If there was more desirable metro areas, the prices of those few wouldn't be so high.
> Why does everyone else need to live in a desirable metro area
Because if nothing else (and there is a lot of else) the tech/lawyer/finance folks want to have restaurants, shops, cinemas, street cleaners, utilities etc etc etc etc
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that work when 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck? When you're not sure if you'll manage to pay the electricity bills to keep your fridge turned on, is your first thought going to be "let's invest in the market!"?
People need to stop using this stat. It's completely useless. There are literally people making top percentile incomes saying they're living paycheck to paycheck in these surveys because they interpret the survey questions wildly different than other people. A tiny, tiny percentage of Americans would literally go hungry if they didn't get their next month's paycheck the rest would have to cash out some small percenta…
> A tiny, tiny percentage of Americans would literally go hungry if they didn't get their next month's paycheck
"71.93% of Americans Living Paycheck to Paycheck Have $2,000 or Less in Savings"[0].
So no, it's not a tiny percentage. $2k or less in savings means being one emergency expense away from not being able to pay rent or your house loan next month.
- [0]: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/banking/living-paycheck-to-pa...
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#305Employee 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…
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…
> we should be optimizing for making a company that makes the workers' lives better.
Sure, you're free to optimize for anything you like. As am I and everyone else. I don't think there are any legal hurdles to set up a company that is fully owned by its workers.
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#306Ha ha ha.
When I hear the average quality of employers ideas I thank for the leaders and the founders who can see through that gibberish.
There is no large company in the world right now that is run this way and for a good reason.
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#307Ha ha ha. When I hear the average quality of employers ideas I thank for the leaders and the founders who can see through that gibberish. There is no large company in the world right now that is run this way and for a good reason.
Ah yes the competent founders, leaders and managers that always find new ways to exploit their workers and customers.
>There is no large company in the world right now that is run this way
Huawei
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#308My favorite pizza place in Sunnyvale became employee-owned, and shortly after decided they only wanted to stay open 3 days a week. I'm happy for those employees but man, I also wish I could get pizza on Monday.
> I also wish I could get pizza on Monday
In a functional market there would be others willing to send you a pizza on Monday.
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The reason I own shares of my company is that I want to have a say in where it goes. Profit sharing is a nice side effect.
Re: Every company should be owned by its employees
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. Historically there might have been a few exceptions to that, but basically always you have a few good years and then the winner(s) who emerges starts abusing their position (even without any regulation that might make it easier for them to do that). Unregulated markets tend to be inherently unstable. And it’s not so much less vs…
> Free markets almost never can survive longterm without (sometimes extensive) regulation. There is no such thing as "without regulation". Nobody is suggesting a system in which murder is legal and the most powerful warlord gets a monopoly. But there is a difference between "the government enforces contracts and anti-trust laws and prices major externalities" and "the government micromanages the economy and is captur…
"The government" is a fictional entity. In reality, it's just a bunch of people.
I think the real issue is that free markets and free speech are not really compatible. If people are allowed to express political opinions, some opinions will inevitably become popular. Sometimes that happens because people don't like the outcomes of the market. Then they try to change things by regulating the market. Repeat that often enough, and you get more and more regulations over time.