3 ms·

> no individual can be a part of more than two business. Do boards count? What about non-profits? > - no business entity can have more than 150 people. I'

> no individual can be a part of more than two business. Do boards count? What about non-profits? > - no business entity can have more than 150 people. I'd note that future businesses will be less people dependent. Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee, this becomes trivial if you make everyone a contractor / gig worker. Just like in accounting, the counting for the purposes of this rule can begin to get creative.

rglullis 5y ago
Boards especially would count. My proposal is to limit the concentration of power in individuals, so they should not be able to have any influence in more than any one business. > Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee. Yeah, but by limiting the size of the corporation, we get: - more competition, and consequently a reduction in profit margins. - more localized/niche offerings. - less chances from the incumbents to buy out potential competitors. (Screw you, Facebook) - more companies trying to succeed by commoditizing their complements. - less capital going to loss-leaders. (Screw you, Google)
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  > but by limiting the size of the corporation Or perhaps we just get concentrated capitalization in employee reduction? If machines don't some how count they'll just approach the limit of machination . * 1 CEO who takes 98.8% of the value * 149 robot maintenance staff who make just above median salary * 1 Billion robots each making $1 of profit.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    What is binding the technicians to stay at "just above median salary"? Why wouldn't they be able to negotiate? If they can generate so much profit by employing capital, why can't they go to another financier and start their own companies? This is not some philosophical puzzle of pirates sharing a treasury. There are tons of other choices for everyone involved, and none of them have to lead to such extreme concentration.

rglullis 5y ago

Boards especially would count. My proposal is to limit the concentration of power in individuals, so they should not be able to have any influence in more than any one business. > Many businesses have > $1M revenue per employee. Perhaps some can even hit $1B per employee. Yeah, but by limiting the size of the corporation, we get: - more competition, and consequently a reduction in profit margins. - more localized/niche offerings. - less chances from the incumbents to buy out potential competitors. (Screw you, Facebook) - more companies trying to succeed by commoditizing their complements. - less capital going to loss-leaders. (Screw you, Google)

maerF0x0 5y ago
> but by limiting the size of the corporation Or perhaps we just get concentrated capitalization in employee reduction? If machines don't some how count they'll just approach the limit of machination . * 1 CEO who takes 98.8% of the value * 149 robot maintenance staff who make just above median salary * 1 Billion robots each making $1 of profit.
- rglullis 5y ago
  What is binding the technicians to stay at "just above median salary"? Why wouldn't they be able to negotiate? If they can generate so much profit by employing capital, why can't they go to another financier and start their own companies? This is not some philosophical puzzle of pirates sharing a treasury. There are tons of other choices for everyone involved, and none of them have to lead to such extreme concentration.