6 ms·

It's not unnatural at all, or at least it's not any more unnatural than someone getting to keep a portion of your labor's profit just because they put the most

by _qwfv 5y ago

It's not unnatural at all, or at least it's not any more unnatural than someone getting to keep a portion of your labor's profit just because they put the most money down when they started the company. A workers co-op, for instance, splits all the profits between all the employees in an arrangement that is basically "we collectively produced profit X we all get an equal share of that profit." While "unnatural" is the wrong word, imo, I think it's fair to say that it's "unfamiliar" to most folks and "uncommon" out in the world.

missedthecue 5y ago
There are no laws against worker co-ops. They are just a pretty inefficient way of running a business in that it's difficult if not impossible in most cases to raise sufficient capital. This is particularly true of software companies, where firms with 20 or 30 employees raise tens of millions of dollars. There is no conceivable way the employees would be able to put up that kind of money by themselves. It's why many existing co-ops such as Bob's Red Mill were founded, funded, and built by capitalists but later gifted to the employees once mature.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  Of course. I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "unnatural".
johnnyanmac 5y ago
it's unnatural because that's not how a business builds. Even with profit sharing, you need to put a portion back into the business (not the CEO, not the worker, but into a metaphorical savings account). if you're giving 100% of labor back to the workers, there's no room for the company to grow and eventually everyone gets $0 when the company shutters. Even a mom and pop shop of 1 needs to operate on these parameters. Heck, even a personal checking account. You keep some money in reserve for a rainy day, and some in the deep reserves for retirement (401k). You very rarely get 100% of your money in liquid (regardless of if you feel underpaid or not), nor do many desire to.

by _qwfv 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago

There are no laws against worker co-ops. They are just a pretty inefficient way of running a business in that it's difficult if not impossible in most cases to raise sufficient capital. This is particularly true of software companies, where firms with 20 or 30 employees raise tens of millions of dollars. There is no conceivable way the employees would be able to put up that kind of money by themselves. It's why many existing co-ops such as Bob's Red Mill were founded, funded, and built by capitalists but later gifted to the employees once mature.

Pfhreak 5y ago
Of course. I just bristle at the suggestion that they are "unnatural".

johnnyanmac 5y ago

it's unnatural because that's not how a business builds. Even with profit sharing, you need to put a portion back into the business (not the CEO, not the worker, but into a metaphorical savings account). if you're giving 100% of labor back to the workers, there's no room for the company to grow and eventually everyone gets $0 when the company shutters. Even a mom and pop shop of 1 needs to operate on these parameters. Heck, even a personal checking account. You keep some money in reserve for a rainy day, and some in the deep reserves for retirement (401k). You very rarely get 100% of your money in liquid (regardless of if you feel underpaid or not), nor do many desire to.