• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you propose they pay you exactly the amount you make them, and the company goes broke in the process, so now you also make nothing since you don’t have a job?

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So the people who put in the most risk and started the company get nothing more than someone who joined 20 years later? How do you expect companies to get created if the owner constantly loses more and more of their company the bigger it gets? Why risk any of this money in the company when it isn’t even his anymore?

            • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s the risk they take? Will they be killed if their business fails to turn a profit?

              Oh no, they’ll might have to work for a wage like the people they were exploiting.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s a huge financial risk to start a business, most require a lot of upfront costs.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                They’ll get as much as they continue to put in.

                Since they run the business I assume they will be making a lot more than the rest of the employees, right?

                State and worker directed capital funds that vet and invest in new firms.

                Do you really think that can work? I think you will have a very hard time getting people to agree to put their money into stuff like this.

                We will structure access to capital such that we don’t depend on profit-sucking capitalists to grant it to us.

                Ah, yeah, let’s just restructure the whole system into some untested idea, that’s going to go over great with everyone. How would you even start making this change?

                  • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It’s not like they just sat back and did nothing.

                    The owner took on 100x+ the risk any employee is, should they not get rewarded for taking that risk?

                    I mean, co-ops and governments all over the world already do it, so yes, I don’t see why it would suddenly stop working.

                    On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it’s really not that different. Look at REI for example, it’s a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?

                    These ideas not untested, however - many countries implement some component of worker ownership and state planning into their economy at all kinds of different scales

                    Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?