Hi Karl. Has that theory ever worked IRL?
Sure, haven’t you ever heard of worker-owned companies?
Works just fine for the company I work for. After 10 years with the company I own about $120k worth of stock that I didn’t have to pay a dime for, and my health/vision/dental insurance is $30 a month with a $100 annual deductible and an out-of-pocket annual maximum of $1,000. I earn over twice the state minimum wage and get three weeks paid vacation a year.
And what percentage of U.S. companies follow that model?
Not enough of them.
So you’re a shareholder, too. That’s great. It doesn’t negate anything I’ve said.
And the employees own 95% of the shares overall amongst them, meaning that the profit from the business goes primarily to the people who work to generate that profit.
You realize that your stance is classic socialism, right? I know that this board leans left, but this is even beyond that.
I consider myself a socialist, so of course I realize that.
That’s just sad.
Seems to me that’s kind of moving the goalposts. You asked if it’s ever worked “in real life” for corporations to exist for the benefit of workers. And the answer is yes, there are plenty of real-life corporations that are worker-owned for whom that model is working just fine.
Now you want to shift the topic to whether such a model could be followed by all or most US corporations. Well, not without making a lot of existing shareholders very unhappy, that’s for sure. But it’s not clear that a business needs to be maximizing shareholder profit at the expense of every other consideration in order to be successful and productive.
? What is “classic socialism”, in your definition? Advocating for worker-owned businesses isn’t necessarily socialist at all. Employee ownership has bipartisan support among Americans:
? What’s “sad” about it?
Plenty? I don’t believe so. Do you any cites to show otherwise?
Well, that would have to depend on how you’re defining “plenty”. Of the 100 largest American majority employee-owned companies, the biggest has over 200K employees (about as many as McDonald’s), and the ten smallest between 1200 and 1500 apiece.
I don’t know how many American worker-owned companies there are with fewer than 1200 employees, nor do I know how many such companies there are in other countries.
Sisyphus has nothing on you.
So, a bunch of employees banding together to buy the shares of a company, without any involvement from the government, is socialism? If the owner of a company chose to give the shares to the employees, again without government intervention, that’s socialism also.
A perfect example of how people on the right use socialism as a scare word without seeming to understand what it means.
I’m not a socialist, by the way. But you’d probably call me one.
I agree that when employers say this, they are using worth as you’ve noted here. But if you can compute the actual productivity per employee (which any employer deserving to stay in business should be able to do) you might come across a situation where an employee’s pay is less than their productivity.
Which means either the employees aren’t being managed well, or the employer doesn’t know how to run a business.
Conservatives do make it sound like my definition is being used while really using yours.
It is my belief that something should.
yeah you cant use door dash grub hub ect menu prices becuase for some reason theyre a buck or two higher than at the actual store then theres 3 fees tacked on depending on what promotion thats being ran …so even before you order delivery you should add about 10-12 bucks upfront t o what you wanna spend …
Oh and just in case you didnt know … Tim hortons has been owned by burger king for about 3 or 4 years now …
People, as noted above, D’Anconia isn’t even consistent with his own values and is arguing outdated 19th-century shareholder value theory. You owe him nothing in defending yours and trying to bring him to, say, 1972 in his understanding of modern economics.