• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months 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
      ·
      9 months 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
        ·
        9 months 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
        ·
        9 months 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
            ·
            9 months 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?

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

                I don’t get why this obsession with undefined “risk” is so important. What’s the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?

                The risk is losing their life savings or having debt the likes of which makes your student debt look like nothing. If the risk means nothing to you, you should try it, make a great business that follows your ideals, and if you fail no big deal, right?

                Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses

                As I suspected, your examples are of countries that are not exactly great places to live, and where US companies go to get the cheapest labor they can. They have worse workers rights than the US

                Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn’t in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances

                It sounds like we really shouldn’t be trying for that if it only works when everyone does it. It’s one thing to try and change a country, but to change the whole world? Might as well be impossible.

                I don’t just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I’ve given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).

                I just can’t picture how that would look though, which is why I asked for the examples. It sounds like there really isn’t a great example of where you think the US should go?