4 ms·

Something is clearly going wrong - and unless we have a correction, then it's going to take us all down with it. My suggestion for discussion: "Stock Options

by goldcd 8y ago

Something is clearly going wrong - and unless we have a correction, then it's going to take us all down with it. My suggestion for discussion: "Stock Options for all" - or something that provides a similar motivation. If you work for a company, you get a salary - but each month you progressively get a bit more skin in the game. Currently we have traders who'll switch allegiance in a moment, Cxx's who are motivated over a quarter/defined period and workers who just take their pay-check. I can't see how it wouldn't be beneficial if everybody involved had an overriding goal of ensuring the company they were involved with had a healthy long-term goal to increase value.

goldcd 8y ago
or to look at it from the entry-level side. There are currently no shortage of minimumish wage jobs out there (choose your payment-point). The jobs and therefore you as an employer are interchangeable. What do you offer that makes them want to care for your company more than just the salary you offer? How do you attract better people to your great company, when you can't afford a competitive salary right now?
0815test 8y ago
Unfortunately, most workers won't actually want anything like this - especially the lowest-income/wealth workers. "Skin in the game" at the firm you're already working for (thus involving quite a bit of relationship-specific capital, which would lose its value real quickly if the firm went under) is just putting all your eggs in one basket.
- njepa 8y ago
  What you would probably do is create some sort of fund, and spread the risk that way. In general it is one of the more realistic ideas, where you could build on existing systems. The problem is that many countries have gone so far the other way that it can't be implemented. A search for "meidner" on Jacobin will give a bunch of reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/search?query=meidner https://www.jacobinmag.com/search?query=meidner
  - goldcd 8y ago
    Indeed it does - Got to sleep, now, but bookmarked for tomorrow. Thanks for the pointer - Sounds precisely in the ball-park of my "I've had a beer" thinking, and I look forward to seeing how it failed for obvious reasons tomorrow :)
- goldcd 8y ago
  The lack of 'want' is why I quite like it. Say 50c an hour 'went to stock' - the worker would much prefer to take the 50c home each week, and the CEO would prefer not to have to deal with the workers collectively building up enough stock to ask difficult questions. That's why I like the idea. It's like taxation as you pay it - but rather than betting on your government having your back, it's a side-bet on your employer. Or looking at it another way. If your employees choose to bet their income on another company over the one they're most familiar with - then htf can you ask the market to take the bet?

by goldcd 8y ago

goldcd 8y ago

or to look at it from the entry-level side. There are currently no shortage of minimumish wage jobs out there (choose your payment-point). The jobs and therefore you as an employer are interchangeable. What do you offer that makes them want to care for your company more than just the salary you offer? How do you attract better people to your great company, when you can't afford a competitive salary right now?

0815test 8y ago

Unfortunately, most workers won't actually want anything like this - especially the lowest-income/wealth workers. "Skin in the game" at the firm you're already working for (thus involving quite a bit of relationship-specific capital, which would lose its value real quickly if the firm went under) is just putting all your eggs in one basket.

njepa 8y ago
What you would probably do is create some sort of fund, and spread the risk that way. In general it is one of the more realistic ideas, where you could build on existing systems. The problem is that many countries have gone so far the other way that it can't be implemented. A search for "meidner" on Jacobin will give a bunch of reading: https://www.jacobinmag.com/search?query=meidner https://www.jacobinmag.com/search?query=meidner
- goldcd 8y ago
  Indeed it does - Got to sleep, now, but bookmarked for tomorrow. Thanks for the pointer - Sounds precisely in the ball-park of my "I've had a beer" thinking, and I look forward to seeing how it failed for obvious reasons tomorrow :)
goldcd 8y ago
The lack of 'want' is why I quite like it. Say 50c an hour 'went to stock' - the worker would much prefer to take the 50c home each week, and the CEO would prefer not to have to deal with the workers collectively building up enough stock to ask difficult questions. That's why I like the idea. It's like taxation as you pay it - but rather than betting on your government having your back, it's a side-bet on your employer. Or looking at it another way. If your employees choose to bet their income on another company over the one they're most familiar with - then htf can you ask the market to take the bet?