3 ms·
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 prof
by 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.