Interpreted charitably, you are making an argument that people's comp should be higher.
But I don't see any argument that paying that higher comp in the form of shares instead of in the form of cash is any better?
(Unless you want to imply that people are too dumb and need to be protected from themselves, and that why we need to give them more stocks instead of more cash? Or something else?)
>you are making an argument that people's comp should be higher.
That's a good argument to make.
Among the entire workforce of a successful employee-owned org, I would think there would be no disagreement, IOW nothing to argue about.
It surely depends how successful, but all you need is to do the math to know for sure.
Beyond a certain threshold, companies where most of the workers are living paycheck-to-paycheck can end up paying them more and that bugaboo can go away completely. Whether or not they are actually awarded or entitled to any shares in their employer yet. Even during a time when it's just the rest of the employees owning the company.
What good are shares if you're never going to sell? I mean never sell your shares nor (vote to) sell the company.
The only thing shares like that entitle you to is dividends. And you only get dividends when the company makes enough money to declare a dividend. Over and above any shortcomings that might need to be overcome.
The net difference is that distributions that go to outside investors under the more-familiar arrangement, are instead returned only to employees when they are the only shareholders.
And sometimes that could be a very life-changing difference for doing the exact same work. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
No need for your charity, thanks. I'm simply making the argument that you must live in a bubble if you think that enough people have the excess liquidity and market knowledge for this to be an applicable solution to the general population.
> Unless you want to imply that people are too dumb and need to be protected from themselves
Not being wise in the markets != being dumb.
Protected from themselves? No, protected from speculators and exploiters.
When the alternative is owning no chunk of any company? Yes, still orders of magnitude better.
Nothing prevents people from investing also in other companies if they feel like. Or are you implying they are "too dumb" to consider the possibility?
Shared ownership also protects employees from speculative decisions like mass layoffs made only to give more value to shareholders. It also prevents the alienation of working on something you don't own and gives a strong incentive for everyone to give their best.
Oh please, you don't even know anymore what's your argument, do you? You just hate to be reminded that the bubble you live in is in now way accurately reflective of the reality most people live in.
I am not the person you were arguing with, so sure maybe I don't know what the other guys argument is lol
I was just commenting on what I was seeing in your comments - sorry that I struck a nerve..
I'm not sure what bubble you think I'm living in, given how little you know about me. But in "your bubble" it doesn't seem like there's a way to reconcile two very antithetical propositions: 1- people don't have the resources/knowledge to invest, but also 2- they can use their excess resources to diversify away from having significant investment with solely their employer. How does that work?
And just to re-iterate, no one besides you has brought up the intelligence of "most people" when it comes to the ability to invest. So...?
But I don't see any argument that paying that higher comp in the form of shares instead of in the form of cash is any better?
(Unless you want to imply that people are too dumb and need to be protected from themselves, and that why we need to give them more stocks instead of more cash? Or something else?)