4 ms·

>in order to get compensated That language is based on the assumption that they're not already being compensated. Their compensation is what they agreed to ac

by daenz 4y ago

>in order to get compensated That language is based on the assumption that they're not already being compensated. Their compensation is what they agreed to accept as payment for their labor. So they're already being compensated. If they want to "own" part of the company outside of this agreement, they need to buy a piece of it. If you want that as part of your employment agreement, negotiate it beforehand, either individually, or as part of a union effort. If you can't negotiate it through those efforts, then accept the fact that the employer believes they can get a better deal on the labor.

CPLX 4y ago
- daenz 4y ago
  >Or you can grab some torches and sharp objects and hold them to his throat and change the terms of the negotiation. Do all of your employees at From Day One own a portion of the company? Why shouldn't they "hold sharp objects to your throat", as the founder, to get a better deal than what they agreed to? If not, why not?
  - CPLX 4y ago
    If they believe they’ve exhausted all other avenues for positive change, and if I personally have subverted and taken over roles best left to a democratic government, then of course they should. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. If they grow weary of the existing power structure and have not been given the ability to meaningfully participate in the institutions that govern the lives of themselves and their communities, then they most certainly should exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow those institutions. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_101160 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_101160
    - daenz 4y ago
      You're re-contexualizing an Abraham Lincoln quote about the government to justify threatening the life of a private citizen. If you have an issue with the government not doing what you feel is its job, then maybe you should petition the government instead of advocating for some bizarre lynch mob (that, ironically, would be put down swiftly by the very government you should be petitioning). That's how "exhausting all other avenues" actually works.
      - CPLX 4y ago
        "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it." Pretty sure the owner of the largest pile of wealth ever assembled and the top political newspaper in the country fits well within the framework of this country's institutions. There's nothing bizarre about a mob coming for the assholes who hoard all the wealth and consign the masses to subsistence level existence. In fact this dynamic is probably the most enduring concept in human history.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        daenz 4y ago
        Is this how you really feel about the Fortune 500 companies that participate in your From Day One conferences? That their leaders should be lynched?
        CPLX 4y ago
        I'm expressing a very uncontroversial opinion, which is that the state should have a monopoly on violence, and that the state should be run of, by, and for the people. If the roles that should be assigned to government ever become so corrupted by corporate interests that the institutions that control our life are no longer recognizable as democratic they should be overthrown by force if necessary. This is the founding principle of America, and I'd be happy to advocate for it in any forum. It sounds like you have an alternate worldview and that's fine too, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this point.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  > The entire concept of Amazon being a company at all is a legal fiction granted as a privilege that can be revoked as easily as it was given. Ok, but how does getting rich because of moving boxes at Amazon rather than Walmart make more sense?
  - mrtesthah 4y ago
    Maybe our goal as a society shouldn’t be to decide who gets rich, but rather to do what it takes to ensure fair distribution of resources such that everyone’s basic needs for food, housing, healthcare, and education are met. That’s difficult to do when wealth is concentrated among a very small group of people.
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
      That’s also difficult when people set up dichotomies like Bezos vs his workers and disregard the entire world.
      - mrtesthah 4y ago
        No, not really. Pointing out the injustice of a company mistreating and burning out its workers in order to produce one of the richest billionaires, usefully illustrates the inequality we face globally.
        LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        Evidently it doesn't.
- beambot 4y ago
  To be fair: all laws are legal fictions enforced by the pointy end of a stick. Could just as easily end up with totalitarianism.
  - CPLX 4y ago
    Now you’re getting it. So when a small group of people has seized control of the laws it’s time to resort to the pointy end of the stick. The laws are there to protect the people from those who seek to enslave them not the other way around.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - daenz 4y ago
      >it’s time to resort to the pointy end of the stick. Are you planning to commit an act of political violence? Do you have weapons?

by daenz 4y ago

CPLX 4y ago

daenz 4y ago
>Or you can grab some torches and sharp objects and hold them to his throat and change the terms of the negotiation. Do all of your employees at From Day One own a portion of the company? Why shouldn't they "hold sharp objects to your throat", as the founder, to get a better deal than what they agreed to? If not, why not?
- CPLX 4y ago
  If they believe they’ve exhausted all other avenues for positive change, and if I personally have subverted and taken over roles best left to a democratic government, then of course they should. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. If they grow weary of the existing power structure and have not been given the ability to meaningfully participate in the institutions that govern the lives of themselves and their communities, then they most certainly should exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow those institutions. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_101160 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_101160
  - daenz 4y ago
    You're re-contexualizing an Abraham Lincoln quote about the government to justify threatening the life of a private citizen. If you have an issue with the government not doing what you feel is its job, then maybe you should petition the government instead of advocating for some bizarre lynch mob (that, ironically, would be put down swiftly by the very government you should be petitioning). That's how "exhausting all other avenues" actually works.
    - CPLX 4y ago
      "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it." Pretty sure the owner of the largest pile of wealth ever assembled and the top political newspaper in the country fits well within the framework of this country's institutions. There's nothing bizarre about a mob coming for the assholes who hoard all the wealth and consign the masses to subsistence level existence. In fact this dynamic is probably the most enduring concept in human history.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - daenz 4y ago
        Is this how you really feel about the Fortune 500 companies that participate in your From Day One conferences? That their leaders should be lynched?
        CPLX 4y ago
        I'm expressing a very uncontroversial opinion, which is that the state should have a monopoly on violence, and that the state should be run of, by, and for the people. If the roles that should be assigned to government ever become so corrupted by corporate interests that the institutions that control our life are no longer recognizable as democratic they should be overthrown by force if necessary. This is the founding principle of America, and I'd be happy to advocate for it in any forum. It sounds like you have an alternate worldview and that's fine too, perhaps we can agree to disagree on this point.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
> The entire concept of Amazon being a company at all is a legal fiction granted as a privilege that can be revoked as easily as it was given. Ok, but how does getting rich because of moving boxes at Amazon rather than Walmart make more sense?
- mrtesthah 4y ago
  Maybe our goal as a society shouldn’t be to decide who gets rich, but rather to do what it takes to ensure fair distribution of resources such that everyone’s basic needs for food, housing, healthcare, and education are met. That’s difficult to do when wealth is concentrated among a very small group of people.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    That’s also difficult when people set up dichotomies like Bezos vs his workers and disregard the entire world.
    - mrtesthah 4y ago
      No, not really. Pointing out the injustice of a company mistreating and burning out its workers in order to produce one of the richest billionaires, usefully illustrates the inequality we face globally.
      - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
        Evidently it doesn't.
beambot 4y ago
To be fair: all laws are legal fictions enforced by the pointy end of a stick. Could just as easily end up with totalitarianism.
- CPLX 4y ago
  Now you’re getting it. So when a small group of people has seized control of the laws it’s time to resort to the pointy end of the stick. The laws are there to protect the people from those who seek to enslave them not the other way around.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - daenz 4y ago
    >it’s time to resort to the pointy end of the stick. Are you planning to commit an act of political violence? Do you have weapons?