13 ms·

This is a really fascinating idea. At its heart, it’s a charity in which the person risking their capital assumes all the risks, while gifting the potential rew

This is a really fascinating idea. At its heart, it’s a charity in which the person risking their capital assumes all the risks, while gifting the potential rewards. Big kudos to the beautiful, big-souled gentleman who put it together.

alkonaut 3y ago
> assumes all the risks, while gifting the potential rewards. Why would worker ownership be a charity and why would owners not be sharing the profits regardless of whether they also work there?
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Because someone had to put up the original capital, and it's not necessarily the same people working there. And if non-workers hold onto ownership, it's not a worker co-op.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    If something is owned by workers then that means they are the ones who put in the capital. They could have bought the business from the original investors, or made the initial investment with common funds. If there are other investors still owning a part of the business then it’s not worker owned (at least not fully worker owned).
    - hot_gril 3y ago
      Yes, and that's what happens sometimes. But it requires the workers to have a lot of capital in the first place, which is rare. Or they'll rely on family and friends for the funding. Then they're being charitable again if they give more out to hire new employees. Other times, the owner will distribute the business for some charitably low price to the workers, like the Avedisyans did with Cheeseboard. No matter how it's done, someone somewhere has to be extra generous.
      - alkonaut 3y ago
        > But it requires the workers to have a lot of capital in the first place, which is rare. That depends entirely on what sort of business it is. Far from all businesses require up front investment. E.g. starting a service company like a cleaning business or computer contracting firm or whatever with a group of friends wouldn't require much up front investment.

alkonaut 3y ago

> assumes all the risks, while gifting the potential rewards. Why would worker ownership be a charity and why would owners not be sharing the profits regardless of whether they also work there?

hot_gril 3y ago
Because someone had to put up the original capital, and it's not necessarily the same people working there. And if non-workers hold onto ownership, it's not a worker co-op.
- alkonaut 3y ago
  If something is owned by workers then that means they are the ones who put in the capital. They could have bought the business from the original investors, or made the initial investment with common funds. If there are other investors still owning a part of the business then it’s not worker owned (at least not fully worker owned).
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Yes, and that's what happens sometimes. But it requires the workers to have a lot of capital in the first place, which is rare. Or they'll rely on family and friends for the funding. Then they're being charitable again if they give more out to hire new employees. Other times, the owner will distribute the business for some charitably low price to the workers, like the Avedisyans did with Cheeseboard. No matter how it's done, someone somewhere has to be extra generous.
    - alkonaut 3y ago
      > But it requires the workers to have a lot of capital in the first place, which is rare. That depends entirely on what sort of business it is. Far from all businesses require up front investment. E.g. starting a service company like a cleaning business or computer contracting firm or whatever with a group of friends wouldn't require much up front investment.