Every company should be owned by its employees

As such we must be very aware of your first sentence. It is really important that people understand that those who manage us are people like us with their own set of interests.

Some people think it is something like an overlord that takes the perfect, most fair decision and, on top of that, without room for mistakes.

Looking at the results I would say it does not respond to that premise at all.

A nice idea in theory, in practice it becomes a bureaucratic nightmare though - even just offering shares is extremely difficult between different countries, tax treaties, etc.

> it wouldn't affect incentives much.

Speculation based on a shortage of info and, I assume (speculation), a feeling that at least some workers would rather do a different job, which would, from my POV (speculation) fit with

> Your barista at Starbucks is not going to increase the stock price no matter how well he fills your order; at the same time, maybe he wants to know how much he takes home every day.

Yes, your barista is increasing the stock price by doing his job well because customers will return for the enjoyable process and outcome. Given the positive feedback and proper operation procedures in quality assurance, workplace development and operations improvement your barista will also "design" & submit ideas to improve/change/expand certain things which can benefit process and outcome for the customers. Your barista is only one link in the supply chain to customer and daily income, which means that every decision will run through a feedback loop that creates the evolution of the company.

But that's rarely the main driver of stock prices, which are currently mostly artificial constructs based on shareholder bullshit, networked manipulation and whale circle jerks. If a company "does bad", though, these main influences are dropped and increases are reversed until company behavior serves the kinks of the shareholders financial orgy again. "Imagine" a company creating free value that can not be monetized by whales but only by the rest of the world. "Free" energy, for example, a perfectly adaptable mix of energy sources maintained by sustainable procedures the negative side effects of which are compensated by gracefully handling resulting trash, upcycling or, out of imminent necessity, the creation of industries that R&D adequate solutions. All of this happens but always based on game theory methods, and that happens only, exclusively, because leadership falsely believes they are compensating their workers based on market evaluations of their work, which, entirely ignore that consumer prices are inflated by whale circle jerk behavior. It's pathetic and deserves nothing but disrespect. But people in circle jerks are manic and obsessed.

Stocks, in their current form and with the current laws, are bullshit and serve a future world where AI will do most jobs and people in companies will only exist so that people higher up in the chain will feel pseudo-dominant, which is already the case, but too many journalists and politicians are part of the circle jerks and thus manic and obsessed as well.

> (a) they find it hard to raise capital

Because circle jerks. There's not even a game theoretical argument to justify this behavior as the giving those companies capital will either increase market and profits directly or by ways of added value as in "learning lessons" and "process of elimination". The reason it's done anyway because the circle jerks base their decision on fear of the evolution of the game so they'd rather keep the game as it is, balancing their decisions which requires totalitarianism, dictatorship.

> (b) they tend to make decisions that maximize worker welfare rather than profit, e.g. they won't sack underperforming divisions or expand in ways that dilute existing workers' stake.

Speculation/misinterpretation. They would sack underperforming divisions if they had to, but there rarely are cases where such divisions can't be improved and made more useful or cases where underperformance has exclusively negative outcomes. Again, the problem is whale circle jerk thinking. Underperformance is a matter of the right metrics, which do not serve the shareholders but company and consumer (the _correct_ metrics, that is). Now, when it comes to expanding while diluting the workers stake, you have the same problem, because the base income won't change. Only the stock increase will, which comes on top of the base revenue and makes everybody rich. But even in the rare cases where everybody does make less money, it's always temporary and sometimes necessary. This is not closed system after all.

The parent comment isn't complaining about the amount CEOs are paid, but the amount they are paid relative to the value provided.

You're ignoring the proportions. Your happiness is maybe 80% related to your job and salary (at least up to a point where you can be considered wealthy, after that there's decreasing returns), and each product you consume from each different company affects your wellbeing by a minuscule amount. Even adding them all up won't give more than, say, 15% as most of your expenses are not on products, but things like housing and transport.

Given that, if you could make everyone's jobs more fullfilling and increase people's salaries at the cost of things costing a bit more, you would definitely increase overall wellbeing. People would afford a small amount less, but that would not impact them significantly, or maybe at all.

The problem I see is that in global competition, you may be put out of business by countries that give much less shit about worker's wellbeing because people will still spend almost all their money on the cheapest available option (even more so if they can afford less!), and that IMHO explains why American companies have taken over so many markets overseas (and now, China seems to be doing it even more). When that happens, everyone in the country loses. So there needs to be a balance, which I think Europe is doing more or less well: people still have great working conditions but can afford less than in the USA, where people have very near the worst possible working conditions (nearly no vacation mandated by law, no parental leave, no healthcare except for the best jobs), but can buy more useless stuff.