2 ms·

> Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Ignoring your hyperbo

> Want to tell me why workers shouldn't have a say yet shareholders who do literally nothing except thirst for profit get all of the say? Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company while the average worker does not, and they likely can be replaced rather easily. I'm not sure how simply working at a company should grant more than what the worker accepted when hired. It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Ignoring your hyperbole, shareholders have tangible, actual property in the form of shares in the company Actually, shares in a company are a textbook example of intangible personal property as opposed to tangible property. > It's not like a single worker or even a group of workers can independently create output similar to what they can at the company. Neither can a single shareholder (or they would); laws were created to create the concept of shareholders and give them rights specifically for that reason, even though capital-providers could participate together I'm ventures by providing debt financing where the upside would be captured by the funded entrepreneur even before joint stock companies existed. Conditioning this government-created special legal privilege for certain providers of capital on the provision of a minimum level of similar control on those providing labor to the venture only seems outlandish because of the long history of not doing it.