4 ms·

This assumes democracy, giving everyone an equal vote, will have a net benefit outcome. I do not believe this is the case. Companies are closer to an autocracy

This assumes democracy, giving everyone an equal vote, will have a net benefit outcome. I do not believe this is the case. Companies are closer to an autocracy or tribunal (board of trustees, etc) With everyone having a vote, either nothing will get done because it will be unorganized and the company will have no coherent vision or direction Or, there will be an autocracy that inevitably forms, with someone ending up at the top and directing what’s to be voted on, to only give the illusion of power of the people. Furthermore, if you’ve started a company, I don’t see why the people you’ve hired should take the company away from the original owner. That would be corporate “eminent domain” It would have disastrous effects of companies high tailing it out of the US, and we’d end up cratering our economy. A less extreme example of this is raising corporate taxes. The reality is, a company is going to try and reduce their tax liability as much as possible (like every person should do, really) If the cost of moving a company for a better tax rate outweighs the cost of the move, they’ll do it. So raising corporate taxes will most likely have such an effect, taking jobs out of areas and moving them to a different state or country. One caveat is if the whole modern world agrees to raise corporate taxes, but then there exists other potential problems

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
> Furthermore, if you’ve started a company, I don’t see why the people you’ve hired should take the company away from the original owner. Did you read up on worker cooperatives at all? The concept is it is worker managed at its inception. I used the word democracy to convey that concept simply but it can be structured however the people that form it want it structured. It could be electing people onto committees that determine roadmaps, comp structure, etc. and they rotate out to other roles in the company per some rules the workers set up. It could be rules like total comp for highest paid must never exceed 8x of lowest paid and profits are shared, etc. The ego centric "I started the company so I say what goes (and I get richest)" pyramid/triangle structure will eventually (if successful) lead to a giant megacorp that does layoffs of 12k people. Or gets bought out by a billionaire that layoffs 75% of staff. People on HN complain about these layoffs but then come in hot about total comp comparisons, RSU's, or complain about these large companies doing business with countries with rap sheets of human rights violations. You can't have it both ways.
- spacephysics 4y ago
  What do you define as inception? Is forming the LLC as a solo dev taking contract work inception? Or is it when it hits 100 employees? Committees and such already exist for companies. It seems like you’re suggesting more of regulation for companies. Total comp for highest paid exec, that sounds closer to price ceilings which I don’t think the government should enforce (which, with a worker cooperative, the gov needs to step in at some point for enforcement) This is the core of employee at will. Fight against that instead of changing the entire corporate structure. Other countries don’t have employee at will, and have min severances and such that are enforced. That sounds like it would produce closer to what you’re looking for (since it also incentivizes companies not to hire as wastefully)
  - mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
    I'm not talking about government regulating anything. Or saying all company structures should change, just that there are other options. When the company structure is formed instead of a S-corp/LLC structure there is something called a workers cooperative where the workers/employees have say in the company and its direction. I've only read about it so I'm sure there are legal structures involved for that setup. This isn't discussed in any business schools from what I gather so maybe some examples would help: https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives A solo-dev starting contract work is a great example. They are the owner/operator of everything, profits, losses, direction. Say their work expands and they hire 3 other people - do those people have a say in direction/projects/clients and share profits/losses or are they just assigned tasks and paid for them? Think of a workers cooperative as more like a farmers coop where everyone gets a share of the literal fruit/veggies coming from the farm because they all worked it and have equity and they collectively decided what the crops were for that season. Tech companies with stock options/RSU's for individual contributors are equity without any say in the company direction. If that company ends up laying off people because of bad management decisions (hiring too many, bad economic forecast, random projects, etc), the people hurt are the employees who had no say in the direction and usually the bad managers stay or have golden parachutes. Like I said earlier, I'm just suggesting an alternative structure perhaps one that doesn't answer to shareholders demand for infinite quarterly growth.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago

> Furthermore, if you’ve started a company, I don’t see why the people you’ve hired should take the company away from the original owner. Did you read up on worker cooperatives at all? The concept is it is worker managed at its inception. I used the word democracy to convey that concept simply but it can be structured however the people that form it want it structured. It could be electing people onto committees that determine roadmaps, comp structure, etc. and they rotate out to other roles in the company per some rules the workers set up. It could be rules like total comp for highest paid must never exceed 8x of lowest paid and profits are shared, etc. The ego centric "I started the company so I say what goes (and I get richest)" pyramid/triangle structure will eventually (if successful) lead to a giant megacorp that does layoffs of 12k people. Or gets bought out by a billionaire that layoffs 75% of staff. People on HN complain about these layoffs but then come in hot about total comp comparisons, RSU's, or complain about these large companies doing business with countries with rap sheets of human rights violations. You can't have it both ways.

spacephysics 4y ago
What do you define as inception? Is forming the LLC as a solo dev taking contract work inception? Or is it when it hits 100 employees? Committees and such already exist for companies. It seems like you’re suggesting more of regulation for companies. Total comp for highest paid exec, that sounds closer to price ceilings which I don’t think the government should enforce (which, with a worker cooperative, the gov needs to step in at some point for enforcement) This is the core of employee at will. Fight against that instead of changing the entire corporate structure. Other countries don’t have employee at will, and have min severances and such that are enforced. That sounds like it would produce closer to what you’re looking for (since it also incentivizes companies not to hire as wastefully)
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  I'm not talking about government regulating anything. Or saying all company structures should change, just that there are other options. When the company structure is formed instead of a S-corp/LLC structure there is something called a workers cooperative where the workers/employees have say in the company and its direction. I've only read about it so I'm sure there are legal structures involved for that setup. This isn't discussed in any business schools from what I gather so maybe some examples would help: https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives https://institute.coop/examples-worker-cooperatives A solo-dev starting contract work is a great example. They are the owner/operator of everything, profits, losses, direction. Say their work expands and they hire 3 other people - do those people have a say in direction/projects/clients and share profits/losses or are they just assigned tasks and paid for them? Think of a workers cooperative as more like a farmers coop where everyone gets a share of the literal fruit/veggies coming from the farm because they all worked it and have equity and they collectively decided what the crops were for that season. Tech companies with stock options/RSU's for individual contributors are equity without any say in the company direction. If that company ends up laying off people because of bad management decisions (hiring too many, bad economic forecast, random projects, etc), the people hurt are the employees who had no say in the direction and usually the bad managers stay or have golden parachutes. Like I said earlier, I'm just suggesting an alternative structure perhaps one that doesn't answer to shareholders demand for infinite quarterly growth.