Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Every company should be owned by its employees

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#891

Post by nlitened »

aziaziazi wrote: post #229
creato wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, they mean that a job which few people want (and are qualified) to do tend to have higher compensation. Supply and demand

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#892

Post by Scarblac »

missedthecue wrote: post #835
skizm wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems extremely good for late employees and extremely bad for early employees / founders? Late employees have no risk and the same reward.

Seems also like a perverse incentive to delay or avoid hiring as well. Every new employee makes everyone else poorer. Unless that one employee is so productive they single handedly make up for lost ownership with increased profit.

Well, is that a perverse incentive? Maybe it just means the company is better off without another employee right now.

But the employees also have other things in mind besides profit, like their work load.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#893

Post by lelanthran »

nox101 wrote: post #548
apantel wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who want to make money above all else are pursuing that because they think that will make them happy. It’s just their idea of the path that will get them to happiness. They see Mark Zuckerberg wakeboarding at his Lake Tahoe retreat and think, ‘That’s happiness — having billions of dollars, not having to worry about meeting basic needs, being able to do what you want.’

Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

> Zuckerberg doesn't get to do what he wants. He's in meetings constantly and rarely has a free moment

This argument of

    Conclusion: $RichPerson doesn't get to do what they want.
    Premise: They're under constant obligation to $MoneyMachine
is both unsound and invalid.

The premise is wrong: at that levels of wealth, the obligation is not real, it's opt-in and you can opt-out at any time.

The conclusion is wrong too: At that levels of wealth, the person can do everything anyone else can do in their off-time, and they have much more off-time than the person making the argument anyway.

It's a poor argument and should not be made.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#894

Post by blackhawkC17 »

bccdee wrote: post #850
blackhawkC17 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Chinese state takes a rather strong hand in allocating capital, and that has treated it fairly well over the past few decades. The Chinese government has spent massive amounts on vanity projects. A lot of government funds have also been looted by CCP honchos. Thanks but no. I’ll take American capital allocators over the Chinese any day. Most importantly, I don’t want to live in a dictatorship.

> A lot of government funds have also been looted by CCP honchos. Yeah, because they're corrupt and undemocratic. I certainly don't endorse China. But they do put to rest the idea that the freer the market, the stronger the economy.

No they don’t. China got richer when they implemented free market reforms, proving the idea.

Unfortunately Xi is now focused on saber-rattling about national security and bullying neighbors. He has cracked down on free markets, and China’s economy is suffering due to his incompetence.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#895

Post by lelanthran »

WalterBright wrote: post #640
li2uR3ce wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies need to attract customers - i.e. make their lives better. Companies need to sell the *idea* of making lives better. They don't actually have to make a customer's life better and many don't despite selling lots of product. Profitability is not a strict function of quality. If it were, we'd not give the slightest fuck about monopolies. It takes a great amount of effort to get companies to compete on "making…

Do you buy things you don't want?

> Do you buy things you don't want?

Unfortunately, yes :-(

Of course, at the time I bought it, I wanted it. TBH, it happened more often when I was young, not so much the last 2 decades of my life.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#896

Post by hollerith »

bccdee wrote: post #850
blackhawkC17 wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Chinese state takes a rather strong hand in allocating capital, and that has treated it fairly well over the past few decades. The Chinese government has spent massive amounts on vanity projects. A lot of government funds have also been looted by CCP honchos. Thanks but no. I’ll take American capital allocators over the Chinese any day. Most importantly, I don’t want to live in a dictatorship.

> A lot of government funds have also been looted by CCP honchos. Yeah, because they're corrupt and undemocratic. I certainly don't endorse China. But they do put to rest the idea that the freer the market, the stronger the economy.

What are your reasons for thinking that the Chinese economy is well-performing? Chinese per-capita income is slightly less than that of Mexico, and you wouldn't use Mexico as an example of a well-performing economy.

China is strong because of its massive population combined with an economy that performs better than the only other country with a similarly massive population.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#898

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

WalterBright wrote: post #640
li2uR3ce wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> companies need to attract customers - i.e. make their lives better. Companies need to sell the *idea* of making lives better. They don't actually have to make a customer's life better and many don't despite selling lots of product. Profitability is not a strict function of quality. If it were, we'd not give the slightest fuck about monopolies. It takes a great amount of effort to get companies to compete on "making…

Do you buy things you don't want?

I, for sure, didn't want a laptop that went dead 10 days after its warranty expired.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#899

Post by dheera »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #889
dheera wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my book, borrowing money to buy something I don't have the cash for does NOT mean I can afford it. Back in the days when I didn't have money to buy a car with cash, I just didn't buy a car and used a bike and public transit to get everywhere. I mean, maybe that's why I have a high savings rate.

Do you also plan to buy your home with cash only? You will need to save for a long time. To me, loans can be used to judiciously add leverage to your financial profile. If 90% LTV (loan-to-value) is too high for your personal risk profile, then you can increase the down payment from 10% to 20 or 30%.

That's OK, I don't want to owe anyone money.

I can quit my job with full peace of mind, that's what this whole thread is about.

If and when I have money to buy a house, I'll just buy one. It's not that different from buying a fancy meal or a plane ticket. If I have the money I might buy it. If I don't, I don't think about it. I'm simple like that, and as a result, I have very few financial worries.

Re: Every company should be owned by its employees

#900

Post by bpodgursky »

gardenhedge wrote: post #81
bpodgursky wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to be rude but you have no idea what you are talking about and clearly have 0 insight into the day-to-day of an actual CEO. It's fine to argue that a particular CEO is underperforming, it's often true, but very few of them are "underworking" by any reasonable definition.

Empty rebuttal. Consider adding more substance to your comment. As a reader I have no idea which of you is correct.

I hear you, but this isn't my day job.
Post reply on HN