Every company should be owned by its employees • Hacker News Board

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#621

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:05 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #618

randomdata wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little ridiculous to think that Greeks don't prioritize making money over some nebulous "community happiness"' She said that the people of her community prioritized happiness, not that the people prioritized community happiness. That might, for example, mean working less to enjoy more free time at the cost of maximizing profit. And, indeed, we can see in the data that the average worker in Greece takes 9 mo…

Happiness. What hell is it even? It means nothing. Why? Because I am the most happy when working at a high paying job with loots of interesting problems to solve. I would be the least happy working at a high paying job with nothing to do. Happiness is a comparator, not a number. Money on the other hand can be counted, and thus can be measured. I am 100% sure every Greek ever would be more happy with more money given…

>Happiness. What hell is it even? It means nothing

Money means even less.

>Why? Because I am the most happy when working at a high paying job with loots of interesting problems to solve.

Yes, people have been conditioned to be working.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#622

Post by elijahjohnston » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:06 PM UTC

Our society isn't ready for this.

Because of the godlessness of our society, the self has no grounds by which to engage with others, and by further incentivizing profit for more individuals, the further our society will tend to engage with itself as profit as its highest purpose — even outside of the workplace — consciously or unconsciously.

I could see this being less dangerous if our society was deeply rooted in a religious reality, where an individual's engagement with the world is driven by a holistic good, as opposed exclusively to a financial good.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#623

Post by tristor » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:07 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #530

tristor wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This criticism would carry more weight if this entire thread wasn't full of snippets of communist fanfic about using legal force to try to upend reality and ending the profit motive for companies and enforcing worker collectives.

> using legal force to try to upend reality You mean like how we upended reality in 2008 to save corrupt institutions and/or incompetent institutions? And then again during COVID? And then again to save Silicon Valley Bank? You pretend that current situation some kind of natural state of affairs, when in reality it is a result of ‘legal force for me but not for the’

None of those things are reality, those are how we chose as a society to interface with it. Now that they've happened, they form a part of the fabric of reality, that is the history of the universe and humanity as a species. When I say "upend reality", I mean the idealist delusions that commies hold about the nature of entropy, the nature of humanity (acting like greed doesn't exist, forgetting the iron law of bureaucracy), and the nature of the world (eat or be eaten).

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#624

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:07 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #608

sqeaky wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to be so absolute no one is "assign[ing] responsibility for your well-being to others", there are grey areas and gradients and employment is fundamentally full of those. No one person can be an expert in everything, we live in a society and should act like it. Needing to be an expert in healthcare, hiring processes, finances, and a dozen other topics just to switch jobs is a major barrier to the just switch m…

> Needing to be an expert in healthcare, hiring processes, finances, and a dozen other topics just to switch jobs is a major barrier to the just switch mentality you are presenting. Nobody is saying you need to be an expert in all of these things to switch jobs. Consider the fact that very few people, if any, are actually experts in all of these things and yet people do in fact switch jobs all the time. Empirically,…

> Nobody is saying you need to be an expert in all of these things to switch jobs. Consider the fact that very few people, if any, are actually experts in all of these things and yet people do in fact switch jobs all the time. Empirically, it is not required.

You vacillate between personal responsibility and skipping requirements, which is it? Should we take you seriously or not?

You do understand that when I say people need to be "Experts" I don't mean hold Phds, I mean they need to be far more well read and have a much deeper understanding outside of core competencies than our contemporaries elsewhere in the world. They get to focus on family or work, and I need to understand 50 pages of contract nonsense to sort out how screwed I am on this interstate tax law and why my health insurance won't pay.

> declining economies and low pay compared to the US

You looking at the median income or the mean income? Because if you cut out a few billionaires the US Mean drops by like 20%. If you look at median we are in line with Countries like Canada and Western Europe who have better worker protections and are doing fine economically. (And they have healthcare so insurance doesn't pin them to one job for fear of literally dying)

> non-compete clauses: don't sign them. I've never encountered one.

You are arguing specifics (and doing it incorrectly) while I am showing you a forest of problems and you go after each tree with an axe ignoring that there is a whole forest.

On this specific tree. Some states banned non-competes. Some people do run into them. Some people do. Some people have no real options without them. Some people signed them in the past not fully understanding them (because they weren't IP law experts). I am not saying these should go away I am saying there should be a floor for how hard employers can screw workers so that someone who isn't a legal expert isn't forced out of their profession in a moment of desperation.

Fundamentally, in the forest of problems you are arguing "I have leverage so this works for me" and ignoring all the people who must say "I have no leverage except for my labor and I am willing to work hard, but I sure hope the system doesn't screw out of these hard earned pennies".

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#625

Post by randomdata » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:07 PM UTC

mbrumlow wrote: post #618

randomdata wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little ridiculous to think that Greeks don't prioritize making money over some nebulous "community happiness"' She said that the people of her community prioritized happiness, not that the people prioritized community happiness. That might, for example, mean working less to enjoy more free time at the cost of maximizing profit. And, indeed, we can see in the data that the average worker in Greece takes 9 mo…

Happiness. What hell is it even? It means nothing. Why? Because I am the most happy when working at a high paying job with loots of interesting problems to solve. I would be the least happy working at a high paying job with nothing to do. Happiness is a comparator, not a number. Money on the other hand can be counted, and thus can be measured. I am 100% sure every Greek ever would be more happy with more money given…

> Money on the other hand can be counted, and thus can be measured.

Not really. "1 money" is just a promise to deliver 1 unit of value in the future. But what characterizes the unit? What is the difference between one unit of value and two units of value?

In reality, we don't really know. It's a continual quest to try and figure that out and it changes on a whim.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#626

Post by nanomonkey » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:08 PM UTC

em500 wrote: post #564

randomdata wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little ridiculous to think that Greeks don't prioritize making money over some nebulous "community happiness"' She said that the people of her community prioritized happiness, not that the people prioritized community happiness. That might, for example, mean working less to enjoy more free time at the cost of maximizing profit. And, indeed, we can see in the data that the average worker in Greece takes 9 mo…

According to OECD data Greece workers work the most hours in the EU, and in most years also more than American workers[1]. So by that metric they prioritize happiness less than most others? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_a...

I'd assume that is because they take on jobs that they'll be happy with, instead of what ever job makes the most money. If you're content with what you do, you can do it sustainably for the rest of your life, if your only motivation to do your job is the money, then you'll burn out and retire early.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#627

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:09 PM UTC

thanksgiving wrote: post #311

Nevermark wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference for optimizing dividends vs. stock value increases due to reinvestment, as for any other company. Employees that can sell shares at any time have the same financial interests as with any other corporation. As much reinvestment as grows value faster than the overall market is how much is best to reinvest. Distribute the rest to owners to use/invest elsewhere.

It sounds like you just explained the opposite of what you said. If you can only get the dividends and can never sell your ownership outright, it makes sense to optimize for long term, sustainable growth and profits over short term profits. So, you don't care about stock value increase as you already own your shares. Actually, I'm thinking low share prices compared to dividends are good because it allows you to buy m…

They are the same with respect to long term planning. You can take a dividend or sell stock to witdraw profits.

Dividends don't have to be sustainable. There are companies that are gutted and liquidated to pay out dividends too.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#628

Post by lupusreal » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:11 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #477

lupusreal wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you conceding that an economy built entirely out of coops would suffer from reduced productivity?

You're asking me if an economy that optimized for happiness instead of productivity would suffer from reduced productivity? Yes, yes it would, and it would also suffer from increased happiness. Again, this is a culture thing, where I'm saying "I don't care about being productive, as long as I'm happy", and you're coming from a Protestant work ethic place of "but how can you be happy if you aren't productive?".

I think you're confusing productivity with profit. Regardless of how company profits are distributed, our society needs productivity. I pointed out that coops are less efficient in terms of productivity, and you responded by complaining about how much money Bezos has. Redistributing the money won't make up for a decrease in productivity, which will harm society as a whole.

As for me being some sort of Christian; I'm not and I take that as an insult. Kindly go fuck yourself.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#629

Post by bankcust08385 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:16 PM UTC

Apart from communism, worker- and customer-owned co-ops is the only escape hatch for workers from for-profit, extractive corporations subject to the demands of investors to commit arbitrary dismals, create unsafe working conditions, and all manner of other problems when the interests of owners and workers are out of alignment. Unions are a half measure that don't address the fundamental problem of an adversarial relationship between workers and managers/owners.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#630

Post by imgabe » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 4:17 PM UTC

sqeaky wrote: post #624

imgabe wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Needing to be an expert in healthcare, hiring processes, finances, and a dozen other topics just to switch jobs is a major barrier to the just switch mentality you are presenting. Nobody is saying you need to be an expert in all of these things to switch jobs. Consider the fact that very few people, if any, are actually experts in all of these things and yet people do in fact switch jobs all the time. Empirically,…

> Nobody is saying you need to be an expert in all of these things to switch jobs. Consider the fact that very few people, if any, are actually experts in all of these things and yet people do in fact switch jobs all the time. Empirically, it is not required. You vacillate between personal responsibility and skipping requirements, which is it? Should we take you seriously or not? You do understand that when I say peo…

> You vacillate between personal responsibility and skipping requirements, which is it? Should we take you seriously or not?

You misunderstand. These things you claim are requirements are not requirements. You do not need to be an "expert" in health insurance or interstate tax law. Mostly you just need to read and follow the basic instructions for those things that the experts already wrote out for you. You think countries in Europe don't have bureaucracy? I live outside the US in a country with public health care. It's nice, but it doesn't mean you never have to spend time navigating a bureaucracy, I promise you that.

> You are arguing specifics (and doing it incorrectly) while I am showing you a forest of problems and you go after each tree with an axe ignoring that there is a whole forest.

Yes, because this is actually how you solve problems. You look at each individual problem and say "Hmm, what can I do about this?" Then you think up a solution and do it. Vague hand-waving at a group of problems while saying "Gee, someone should do something about all this mess!" doesn't actually accomplish anything.