4 ms·

>>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control

by ardy42 6y ago

>>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. > It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. The distinction you're making doesn't appear relevant. If you're an employee and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. > Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things. => But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?
- chmod775 6y ago
  >If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. This discussion wasn't about mergers. Amazon isn't merging with anyone. They're outright buying their competition.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. If Amazon doubles in size by merging with one Amazon-sized company or by acquiring a thousand companies that are each 0.1% of their size, the effect on shareholder control of the combined entity is the same.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The distinction you're making doesn't appear relevant. If you're an employee and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. But the dynamic and motivations of the actors in the two systems would be different. In every company I have shares of, my ability to influence company policy with my votes literally rounds down to nothing because I own such a small fraction of shares, so I don't care about that getting diluted. 0 * 50% is still 0. Even in contemporary companies, one-worker-one-vote would give the smallest actors massively more say, and in such a system I'd imagine there'd be incentives for companies to remain smaller so each individual worker feels like they have more say over their day-to-day life. Having a say in your area in important, and for instance (IIRC) the founders of WhatsApp and Instagram quit Facebook after it became clear that their previous assurances of maintaining control over their creations despite their dilution was a lie.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > In every company I have shares of, my ability to influence company policy with my votes literally rounds down to nothing because I own such a small fraction of shares, so I don't care about that getting diluted. 0 * 50% is still 0. How is that not the same thing when you're dealing with companies that have thousands of employees and each individual's vote would also already be ~0%? > and in such a system I'd imagine there'd be incentives for companies to remain smaller so each individual worker feels like they have more say over their day-to-day life. That would only apply to companies that aren't already big. But then you're subject to the same dynamic as is already present where the larger company has greater economies of scale and undercuts the smaller company on price until they go out of business. Walmart didn't get where they are by buying all the smaller competing retailers.

by ardy42 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. The distinction you're making doesn't appear relevant. If you're an employee and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. > Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things. => But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?

chmod775 6y ago
>If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. This discussion wasn't about mergers. Amazon isn't merging with anyone. They're outright buying their competition.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make. If Amazon doubles in size by merging with one Amazon-sized company or by acquiring a thousand companies that are each 0.1% of their size, the effect on shareholder control of the combined entity is the same.
ardy42 6y ago
> The distinction you're making doesn't appear relevant. If you're an employee and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. If you're a shareholder and your company merges with one of equal size, your vote is diluted by half. It's true whether you own one share or a million. But the dynamic and motivations of the actors in the two systems would be different. In every company I have shares of, my ability to influence company policy with my votes literally rounds down to nothing because I own such a small fraction of shares, so I don't care about that getting diluted. 0 * 50% is still 0. Even in contemporary companies, one-worker-one-vote would give the smallest actors massively more say, and in such a system I'd imagine there'd be incentives for companies to remain smaller so each individual worker feels like they have more say over their day-to-day life. Having a say in your area in important, and for instance (IIRC) the founders of WhatsApp and Instagram quit Facebook after it became clear that their previous assurances of maintaining control over their creations despite their dilution was a lie.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > In every company I have shares of, my ability to influence company policy with my votes literally rounds down to nothing because I own such a small fraction of shares, so I don't care about that getting diluted. 0 * 50% is still 0. How is that not the same thing when you're dealing with companies that have thousands of employees and each individual's vote would also already be ~0%? > and in such a system I'd imagine there'd be incentives for companies to remain smaller so each individual worker feels like they have more say over their day-to-day life. That would only apply to companies that aren't already big. But then you're subject to the same dynamic as is already present where the larger company has greater economies of scale and undercuts the smaller company on price until they go out of business. Walmart didn't get where they are by buying all the smaller competing retailers.