3 ms·

That is entirely unfair and loosing the point. First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies. Second, even if I had the kn

That is entirely unfair and loosing the point. First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies. Second, even if I had the knowledge and the will to buy correct shares and make money by buying shares, that money probably deserves to stay with the workers that actually produced it. I personally don’t want to be the person getting the money that fellow workers earned but didn’t get. But this is all besides the point. The point is that money siphoned to shareholders and CEOs is just as costly as money used to pay workers more. Both have the potential of ending up as increased consumer price. If your workers are demanding more pay, and you are a CEO of a multi-million dollar company, you could very well finance the increased pay by cutting bonuses to upper management and canceling dividends, as opposed to raising the price of the products.

WalterBright 5y ago
> First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies. Now we're getting somewhere! A true story. A friend of mine was offered a job at a startup. He was offered a salary plus a percent of the profits. He said he didn't want to take any risk, and wanted a higher salary instead of the percent. He got it. The company was successful, and was eventually sold. The employees who opted for profit sharing got a handsome bonuses. He did not. He was incensed. Do you think his anger was justified?
- runarberg 5y ago
  Yes. The company should never have given this option in the first place. Instead they should have given the workers a fair share of the profits (or hopeful profits in case of a startup), and then increased everyones wages in porportion to how the value of their work increased. It is not in the interest of the worker to gamble their salaries like this, and it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are... Most options given to workers amount to less then two weeks of traditional salaries but the average worker experiences it as far more. But again all of this is besides the point. I started out with critiquing multi-million dollar companies (not startups) with paying their shareholders and CEOs so much that it is just as likely to result in higher consumer prices as high worker pay. This critique still stands.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > Yes. You believe that when a man makes a bargain, he should be angry if he's held to it? > it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are Not the point. The point is he wanted more money instead, got it, then was angry because he didn't get a share of the profits on top of that, which he explicitly bargained away. He was not a man of his word. A market economy depends on people making agreements, and those agreements being enforceable. Anything else is simply unworkable. > This critique still stands. I read it as wanting a share of the profits without any risk. Things just don't work that way.

WalterBright 5y ago

> First I’m not gonna gamble my money on taking profits away from different companies. Now we're getting somewhere! A true story. A friend of mine was offered a job at a startup. He was offered a salary plus a percent of the profits. He said he didn't want to take any risk, and wanted a higher salary instead of the percent. He got it. The company was successful, and was eventually sold. The employees who opted for profit sharing got a handsome bonuses. He did not. He was incensed. Do you think his anger was justified?

runarberg 5y ago
Yes. The company should never have given this option in the first place. Instead they should have given the workers a fair share of the profits (or hopeful profits in case of a startup), and then increased everyones wages in porportion to how the value of their work increased. It is not in the interest of the worker to gamble their salaries like this, and it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are... Most options given to workers amount to less then two weeks of traditional salaries but the average worker experiences it as far more. But again all of this is besides the point. I started out with critiquing multi-million dollar companies (not startups) with paying their shareholders and CEOs so much that it is just as likely to result in higher consumer prices as high worker pay. This critique still stands.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > Yes. You believe that when a man makes a bargain, he should be angry if he's held to it? > it is often used as a tactic to pretend you are paying more then you are Not the point. The point is he wanted more money instead, got it, then was angry because he didn't get a share of the profits on top of that, which he explicitly bargained away. He was not a man of his word. A market economy depends on people making agreements, and those agreements being enforceable. Anything else is simply unworkable. > This critique still stands. I read it as wanting a share of the profits without any risk. Things just don't work that way.