5 ms·

I believe alternative forms of ownership aren't discussed nearly enough. As we see more wealth become concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and with new co

I believe alternative forms of ownership aren't discussed nearly enough. As we see more wealth become concentrated in the hands of fewer people, and with new companies being one of the sources of wealth creation, we need to re-evaluate our current system of corporate ownership and ask if it is really what's best for society. I'm not necessarily sure if this is the best way of doing it or not, but I appreciate the viewpoint. I've thought about how best to manage company ownership in a worker owned cooperative, but I haven't settled on a personal answer.

currymj 7y ago
I have occasionally thought that for worker cooperatives, equity that decays over time might be interesting. That is, shares are still liquid and can be held by non-workers and former workers, but they gradually expire. New shares would only be issued to current workers; one could set this rate and the decay rate to get a desired result. No idea if this has been tried or not.
- jdmichal 7y ago
  I don't know whether it's legally possible to decay equity. Equity is seen as property, so once it's granted you can't just revoke it. You can expire or revoke options, but options themselves don't grant any right other than buying or selling the underlying asset. You could do something like a maturing bond, where it grants payout rights, but that doesn't give equity. You can just plan on a constant level of dilution, ala Bitcoin, but that doesn't ever actually remove previous ownership.
  - sdenton4 7y ago
    Lease the equity (and associated rights) instead of selling it, and include the decay schedule in the contract... Seems fine to me?
  - em-bee 7y ago
    wouldn't diluting the equity by giving additional shares to current employees have the same effect?
WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago
> what's best for society Doing things in the name of the Greater Good ALWAYS leads to suffering.
danieltillett 7y ago
I am concerned we are missing the forest for the trees when we worry about ownership. The issue of wealth concentration is caused by a lack of competition in the market - what we need is less focus on billionaires and more on trust busting. In a market with strong competition you don't get billionaires.
- antisemiotic 7y ago
  It's always more profitable to rent out means of production than to do any actual work. (capital gains cannot be explained purely as the reward for the work of managing said capital, this was was pointed out by Adam Smith). Fairer distribution of ownership means fairer distribution of income.
  - danieltillett 7y ago
    Not in a market with perfect competition. While we will never get to perfect competition, even moderately competitive markets avoid most of the problems of rent seeking and monopoly abuse. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the 19th C. and the abuses of Standard Oil and the rest of the robber barons.
    - antisemiotic 7y ago
      >Not in a market with perfect competition. I'm sorry, but it reminds me of a joke about a physicist tasked to optimize a dairy - "for a perfectly spherical cow in frictionless vacuum..." >While we will never get to perfect competition, even moderately competitive markets avoid most of the problems of rent seeking and monopoly abuse. Well, at the core of capitalism lies a positive feedback loop that allows people with a lot of capital to more freely invest long term than those with less capital, and forces people who barely get by to accept worse deals in order to survive. As I see it, the more people own capital, the more likely an average person is to be on both sides of asshole deals, which is slightly better. Unlike fixing competition by legislation, it doesn't put so much power in the hands of people who get to decide where "honest competition" ends and "underhanded tactics" begin (for example where just being better than competition and protecting your trade secrets ends, and vendor lock-in begins). I'm aware that it's also a "spherical cow" solution and I'm not sure if that would actually fly in real life (coops seem to pop up here and there from time to time, and none has revolutionized the world) and perhaps your solution is more robust in that it targets the market forces that shape companies, instead of trying to build something against them. I guess that if I ever get around to trying my wet dream of staring a tech coop, I'll be sure to post it here.
AlexB138 7y ago
> we need to re-evaluate our current system of corporate ownership and ask if it is really what's best for society You phrase this as if it's an either/or. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, or any other owner, are currently perfectly free to experiment with other ownership models in your own company.
jarofgreen 7y ago
> I've thought about how best to manage company ownership in a worker owned cooperative What have you thought about? My email is in my profile

currymj 7y ago

I have occasionally thought that for worker cooperatives, equity that decays over time might be interesting. That is, shares are still liquid and can be held by non-workers and former workers, but they gradually expire. New shares would only be issued to current workers; one could set this rate and the decay rate to get a desired result. No idea if this has been tried or not.

jdmichal 7y ago
I don't know whether it's legally possible to decay equity. Equity is seen as property, so once it's granted you can't just revoke it. You can expire or revoke options, but options themselves don't grant any right other than buying or selling the underlying asset. You could do something like a maturing bond, where it grants payout rights, but that doesn't give equity. You can just plan on a constant level of dilution, ala Bitcoin, but that doesn't ever actually remove previous ownership.
- sdenton4 7y ago
  Lease the equity (and associated rights) instead of selling it, and include the decay schedule in the contract... Seems fine to me?
- em-bee 7y ago
  wouldn't diluting the equity by giving additional shares to current employees have the same effect?

WC3w6pXxgGd 7y ago

> what's best for society Doing things in the name of the Greater Good ALWAYS leads to suffering.

danieltillett 7y ago

I am concerned we are missing the forest for the trees when we worry about ownership. The issue of wealth concentration is caused by a lack of competition in the market - what we need is less focus on billionaires and more on trust busting. In a market with strong competition you don't get billionaires.

antisemiotic 7y ago
It's always more profitable to rent out means of production than to do any actual work. (capital gains cannot be explained purely as the reward for the work of managing said capital, this was was pointed out by Adam Smith). Fairer distribution of ownership means fairer distribution of income.
- danieltillett 7y ago
  Not in a market with perfect competition. While we will never get to perfect competition, even moderately competitive markets avoid most of the problems of rent seeking and monopoly abuse. We seem to have forgotten the lessons of the 19th C. and the abuses of Standard Oil and the rest of the robber barons.
  - antisemiotic 7y ago
    >Not in a market with perfect competition. I'm sorry, but it reminds me of a joke about a physicist tasked to optimize a dairy - "for a perfectly spherical cow in frictionless vacuum..." >While we will never get to perfect competition, even moderately competitive markets avoid most of the problems of rent seeking and monopoly abuse. Well, at the core of capitalism lies a positive feedback loop that allows people with a lot of capital to more freely invest long term than those with less capital, and forces people who barely get by to accept worse deals in order to survive. As I see it, the more people own capital, the more likely an average person is to be on both sides of asshole deals, which is slightly better. Unlike fixing competition by legislation, it doesn't put so much power in the hands of people who get to decide where "honest competition" ends and "underhanded tactics" begin (for example where just being better than competition and protecting your trade secrets ends, and vendor lock-in begins). I'm aware that it's also a "spherical cow" solution and I'm not sure if that would actually fly in real life (coops seem to pop up here and there from time to time, and none has revolutionized the world) and perhaps your solution is more robust in that it targets the market forces that shape companies, instead of trying to build something against them. I guess that if I ever get around to trying my wet dream of staring a tech coop, I'll be sure to post it here.

AlexB138 7y ago

> we need to re-evaluate our current system of corporate ownership and ask if it is really what's best for society You phrase this as if it's an either/or. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you, or any other owner, are currently perfectly free to experiment with other ownership models in your own company.

jarofgreen 7y ago

> I've thought about how best to manage company ownership in a worker owned cooperative What have you thought about? My email is in my profile