3 ms·
> 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
by 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.