3 ms·

It's not the world we live in though, workers are rarely paid from the profits in the same sort of way shareholders are. Ideally, workers would be paid a wage

It's not the world we live in though, workers are rarely paid from the profits in the same sort of way shareholders are. Ideally, workers would be paid a wage for their time, and later have the profits of their work shared amongst them. After all, they are the ones responsible for generating this wealth.

loeg 6y ago
You're free to buy as big a stake in your employer's stock as you want, and reap the profits. The point I'm trying to make is: what is a fair % of Apple's profits for an individual worker, and how much would it cost that worker to buy in as a worker-owner? Back of the envelope: $2.13T market cap, 137k employees: $15.5 million buy-in cost per employee-owner (~123k shares each). Dividends per share 2020: $2.615, or $323k/yr per worker. Please check my math, but I think I have the orders of magnitude right. Personally, if you have a spare $15.5 million, I'd recommend a more diversified portfolio of broad-market low-fee index funds and (IMO) early retirement.
- maxmamis 6y ago
  Congrats on entirely missing the point, which is that the workers created that wealth in the first place and should not have to “buy in” (read: purchase equity from capitalist owners) to receive the reward that is rightfully theirs
  - loeg 6y ago
    I might be missing the point still. When did workers create the wealth, exactly? If you're talking about Apple's first five employees, sure, they could have bought in for not very much money in 1980 or whatever (they probably were part-owners and/or paid in equity!). But there weren't any profits in 1980, either, nor for a long time. And most employees have probably moved on in that 40-year window. Someone joining Apple today did not create any of that wealth. Not sure why a random hire today "rightfully" deserves some huge transfer of wealth from the "capitalist owners" (read: owners) on their start date. Can you elaborate on that step?
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      > Someone joining Apple today did not create any of that wealth. Everyone working for Apple, including indirectly, i.e. all the way down its supply chains, are collectively generating wealth for the company. Just imagine how much fairer it would be towards all these people who did the actual work, if the profits generated from every iPhone, every iPad, every MacBook sold (and so on) ended up in their pockets instead.
    - Frondo 6y ago
      > When did workers create the wealth, exactly? When they showed up to the factory that day and turned a pile of parts into an iphone. Where do you think the wealth comes from?
randomdata 6y ago
Workers are rarely paid that way because they don't want the risk. Most businesses will end up with negative profits. At best, no profits. Imagine being an employee for a year or two and then having to pay for the luxury at the end. It is no surprise that it is avoided, usually. It is definitely an option, though, for the workers who like the risk and think the chance of winning the lottery is there. Instead, workers usually prefer to estimate what the profitability will be up front and determine what they want out of the pie based on that assumption. Then they lock in at that price regardless of what happens. If the business fails, they still get their agreed upon amount. If the business thrives, they might only end up with a small piece of the pie, but it was worth it given the risk of ending up with nothing. It's essentially a futures contract. It seems a little much to get to have it both ways – to be guaranteed the estimated piece of the pie when the business fails, but also all the upside when the business succeeds beyond imagination. Why would anyone agree to that? Those rare moonshot wins are what pays the workers for the times that there are losses. If the workers got the proceeds from the moonshot wins and the proceeds from their futures contracts, the math would stop adding up and employment would grind to a halt.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  > Instead, workers usually prefer to estimate what the profitability will be up front and determine what they want out of the pie based on that assumption. I'm not certain what you mean here. When does this happen? This doesn't sound like the usual method or motivation for job seeking.
  - randomdata 6y ago
    It happens all the time. It is why software developers in incredibly high margin tech companies will ask for incomes >$100,000/year, while servers at low margin restaurants are left to ask for minimum wage. Tech companies can end up never making a dime and restaurants can produce fortunes, but on a statistical probability basis, the profitability of a tech company is more likely to round out to that $100,000 per employee figure and a restaurant the minimum wage figure, on average. That makes those asks to be quite reasonable and the market settles there. When the future is unknown, when the futures contracts are being established, one can only guess as to how much money that labour input is going to return. The value that is established for a given job, commensurable to its relation to producing that future income, is always done on a best guess basis, knowing that reality can swing widely in either direction. It's an average, of sorts. If you think the prevailing best guess is wrong and that a restaurant will easily make enough to give you back $100,000 as a server, you can defer your payout until that quantity is known. This arrangement does happen, but is usually eschewed as the worker would usually rather have the guaranteed known quantity, based on the best guess of their contribution in the profitability, even if removed from the final earnings, for their work. It reduces their risk. As an aside, servers at restaurants are an interesting example as they do commonly play both sides. They lock in some of their income on the future's market, but also capture a share of the profit when it is made. There is a lot of flexibility in your options. Typically, most workers prefer to stay within the futures market entirely, though, as they want the security of a known quantity for their income, rather than making millions one year and loosing millions the next.

loeg 6y ago

You're free to buy as big a stake in your employer's stock as you want, and reap the profits. The point I'm trying to make is: what is a fair % of Apple's profits for an individual worker, and how much would it cost that worker to buy in as a worker-owner? Back of the envelope: $2.13T market cap, 137k employees: $15.5 million buy-in cost per employee-owner (~123k shares each). Dividends per share 2020: $2.615, or $323k/yr per worker. Please check my math, but I think I have the orders of magnitude right. Personally, if you have a spare $15.5 million, I'd recommend a more diversified portfolio of broad-market low-fee index funds and (IMO) early retirement.

maxmamis 6y ago
Congrats on entirely missing the point, which is that the workers created that wealth in the first place and should not have to “buy in” (read: purchase equity from capitalist owners) to receive the reward that is rightfully theirs
- loeg 6y ago
  I might be missing the point still. When did workers create the wealth, exactly? If you're talking about Apple's first five employees, sure, they could have bought in for not very much money in 1980 or whatever (they probably were part-owners and/or paid in equity!). But there weren't any profits in 1980, either, nor for a long time. And most employees have probably moved on in that 40-year window. Someone joining Apple today did not create any of that wealth. Not sure why a random hire today "rightfully" deserves some huge transfer of wealth from the "capitalist owners" (read: owners) on their start date. Can you elaborate on that step?
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    > Someone joining Apple today did not create any of that wealth. Everyone working for Apple, including indirectly, i.e. all the way down its supply chains, are collectively generating wealth for the company. Just imagine how much fairer it would be towards all these people who did the actual work, if the profits generated from every iPhone, every iPad, every MacBook sold (and so on) ended up in their pockets instead.
  - Frondo 6y ago
    > When did workers create the wealth, exactly? When they showed up to the factory that day and turned a pile of parts into an iphone. Where do you think the wealth comes from?

randomdata 6y ago

Workers are rarely paid that way because they don't want the risk. Most businesses will end up with negative profits. At best, no profits. Imagine being an employee for a year or two and then having to pay for the luxury at the end. It is no surprise that it is avoided, usually. It is definitely an option, though, for the workers who like the risk and think the chance of winning the lottery is there. Instead, workers usually prefer to estimate what the profitability will be up front and determine what they want out of the pie based on that assumption. Then they lock in at that price regardless of what happens. If the business fails, they still get their agreed upon amount. If the business thrives, they might only end up with a small piece of the pie, but it was worth it given the risk of ending up with nothing. It's essentially a futures contract. It seems a little much to get to have it both ways – to be guaranteed the estimated piece of the pie when the business fails, but also all the upside when the business succeeds beyond imagination. Why would anyone agree to that? Those rare moonshot wins are what pays the workers for the times that there are losses. If the workers got the proceeds from the moonshot wins and the proceeds from their futures contracts, the math would stop adding up and employment would grind to a halt.

crumbshot 6y ago
> Instead, workers usually prefer to estimate what the profitability will be up front and determine what they want out of the pie based on that assumption. I'm not certain what you mean here. When does this happen? This doesn't sound like the usual method or motivation for job seeking.
- randomdata 6y ago
  It happens all the time. It is why software developers in incredibly high margin tech companies will ask for incomes >$100,000/year, while servers at low margin restaurants are left to ask for minimum wage. Tech companies can end up never making a dime and restaurants can produce fortunes, but on a statistical probability basis, the profitability of a tech company is more likely to round out to that $100,000 per employee figure and a restaurant the minimum wage figure, on average. That makes those asks to be quite reasonable and the market settles there. When the future is unknown, when the futures contracts are being established, one can only guess as to how much money that labour input is going to return. The value that is established for a given job, commensurable to its relation to producing that future income, is always done on a best guess basis, knowing that reality can swing widely in either direction. It's an average, of sorts. If you think the prevailing best guess is wrong and that a restaurant will easily make enough to give you back $100,000 as a server, you can defer your payout until that quantity is known. This arrangement does happen, but is usually eschewed as the worker would usually rather have the guaranteed known quantity, based on the best guess of their contribution in the profitability, even if removed from the final earnings, for their work. It reduces their risk. As an aside, servers at restaurants are an interesting example as they do commonly play both sides. They lock in some of their income on the future's market, but also capture a share of the profit when it is made. There is a lot of flexibility in your options. Typically, most workers prefer to stay within the futures market entirely, though, as they want the security of a known quantity for their income, rather than making millions one year and loosing millions the next.