3 ms·

I mean, this is how most successful hedge funds get transferred and how most partnerships do as well. The next gen takes on loans, often provided by the compan

I mean, this is how most successful hedge funds get transferred and how most partnerships do as well. The next gen takes on loans, often provided by the company to buy out the founders or previous partners. There is nothing strange or in appropriate about that. > In most developed economies a company owner cannot arbitrarily destroy their employees' careers. You have a responsibility to the people who've devoted a substantial chunk of their lives to you. No ones career was destroyed unless you know something I don't. Can you cite what you are referring to here? Most of the people taking over are long term employees who have been making 7+ figures a year for 15+ years now. They aren't been taken advantage of, these are incredibly savvy people.

lmm 4y ago
> No ones career was destroyed unless you know something I don't. Can you cite what you are referring to here? My point is that even if he's the "owner" (actually not true, he just retains voting control through super-voting shares, which is a whole other rant) he wouldn't (under most developed economies' laws) generally have free rein to arbitrarily do what he wants with the company when that negatively affects the employees. He can probably retire and sell it to the highest bidder, that seems eminently reasonable, but he'd be unlikely to be allowed to arbitrarily downscale or wind up a business that was operating profitably. So the idea that he's somehow doing the employees a favour by keeping the business running at all is pretty lopsided.
- jquery 4y ago
  Precisely. It’s very… ahem… American… to think that company owners can and should basically treat their employees like livestock. And also that the figurehead deserves thousands of times more compensation than anyone else, by virtue of them being there first. It’s all based on the myth of meritocracy.

lmm 4y ago

> No ones career was destroyed unless you know something I don't. Can you cite what you are referring to here? My point is that even if he's the "owner" (actually not true, he just retains voting control through super-voting shares, which is a whole other rant) he wouldn't (under most developed economies' laws) generally have free rein to arbitrarily do what he wants with the company when that negatively affects the employees. He can probably retire and sell it to the highest bidder, that seems eminently reasonable, but he'd be unlikely to be allowed to arbitrarily downscale or wind up a business that was operating profitably. So the idea that he's somehow doing the employees a favour by keeping the business running at all is pretty lopsided.

jquery 4y ago
Precisely. It’s very… ahem… American… to think that company owners can and should basically treat their employees like livestock. And also that the figurehead deserves thousands of times more compensation than anyone else, by virtue of them being there first. It’s all based on the myth of meritocracy.