5 ms·

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

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?