3 ms·

All software created by private companies should be created by worker owned enterprises so they aren't forced to hand over the lions share of profits to separat

by yesbut 3y ago

All software created by private companies should be created by worker owned enterprises so they aren't forced to hand over the lions share of profits to separate owners. Instead the employees are the owners. They decide how to use the profits collectively and democratically among themselves.

bruce511 3y ago
Nothing stops like-minded employees from banding together, and forming a collective. Indeed these exist. As you feel strongly about this, might I suggest you post an ad to find other like-minded individuals to align with and start said collective. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Collectives exist and do well.) On the other hand you gloss over the role that owners play - perhaps because you've not been an owner? The obvious one of course being capital - developers like to be paid -while- creating, and not just "maybe later if it sells". What you call "profit", some owners might call "return on investment". If your collective is prepared to invest time, or money, then indeed they should share in the return (if there is one.) For better or worse, owners also have responsibilities. As much fun as collective decision making is, decisions do need to be made. What to build. When to hire. When to fire. Who to sell to. How to reach them. How much to spend reaching them. It takes a lot of right decisions to make a success, and only a couple of bad ones to sink the whole enterprise. But, and this is my point, there are lots of models to choose, and everyone should pick thd one that suits them best. Employer or employee or man-alone. Open Source or Commercial. Hierarchical business or collective. With software (unlike say, building roads) anything goes. Your future is the one you choose.
- yesbut 3y ago
  Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. Some countries, like Italy, have programs for workers who are laid off. If ten workers that were laid off at the same time agree then the state will give them all of their unemployment wages in a lump sum to start a worker owned company together. Some countries will give workers the Right to First Refusal if their employer decides thatvthey want to close the place of employment or sale it. And the state will provide low interest loans to the workers so that they can buy the company. There are lots of solutions to the financing issue, but we need the states and federal government to be more supportive of the practical realities of non-wealthy workers starting worker owned enterprises and implement policies that create a level playing field. Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    >> Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. I'd argue that even allowing for the VC approach, financing is a big barricade for creating any business. >> Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending. Given that 90% oc businesses will fail in the first 5 years, its not surprising that lending money to a new business is considered, well, risky. But both these points return us to the same starting point - which is the value of providing capital, and the value of taking risk. Since an investor has a choice, we attract these investors by making them "owners", with the promise of future profit. A government funded model, which provides "collective capital" for no equity sounds like a good plan, that can work well when applied to the right people. Unfortunately it's likely that 90% of the money will be spent for no permanent job return, and that seems like it will become an issue once it spans multiple election periods. Most successful small businesses are started with little capital, but a fair amount of time. I was fortunate that my wife's salary supported me in the years it took for mine to make money.
    - yesbut 3y ago
      We should have more public banks like North Dakota does and which are found in many countries. There is clearly a vested interest in the US by the power centers to keeping public banks from spreading.

by yesbut 3y ago

bruce511 3y ago

Nothing stops like-minded employees from banding together, and forming a collective. Indeed these exist. As you feel strongly about this, might I suggest you post an ad to find other like-minded individuals to align with and start said collective. (Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. Collectives exist and do well.) On the other hand you gloss over the role that owners play - perhaps because you've not been an owner? The obvious one of course being capital - developers like to be paid -while- creating, and not just "maybe later if it sells". What you call "profit", some owners might call "return on investment". If your collective is prepared to invest time, or money, then indeed they should share in the return (if there is one.) For better or worse, owners also have responsibilities. As much fun as collective decision making is, decisions do need to be made. What to build. When to hire. When to fire. Who to sell to. How to reach them. How much to spend reaching them. It takes a lot of right decisions to make a success, and only a couple of bad ones to sink the whole enterprise. But, and this is my point, there are lots of models to choose, and everyone should pick thd one that suits them best. Employer or employee or man-alone. Open Source or Commercial. Hierarchical business or collective. With software (unlike say, building roads) anything goes. Your future is the one you choose.

yesbut 3y ago
Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. Some countries, like Italy, have programs for workers who are laid off. If ten workers that were laid off at the same time agree then the state will give them all of their unemployment wages in a lump sum to start a worker owned company together. Some countries will give workers the Right to First Refusal if their employer decides thatvthey want to close the place of employment or sale it. And the state will provide low interest loans to the workers so that they can buy the company. There are lots of solutions to the financing issue, but we need the states and federal government to be more supportive of the practical realities of non-wealthy workers starting worker owned enterprises and implement policies that create a level playing field. Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending.
- bruce511 3y ago
  >> Financing is a big barricade for creating a worker owned enterprise in the US. I'd argue that even allowing for the VC approach, financing is a big barricade for creating any business. >> Banks in the US currently frown on this type of lending. Given that 90% oc businesses will fail in the first 5 years, its not surprising that lending money to a new business is considered, well, risky. But both these points return us to the same starting point - which is the value of providing capital, and the value of taking risk. Since an investor has a choice, we attract these investors by making them "owners", with the promise of future profit. A government funded model, which provides "collective capital" for no equity sounds like a good plan, that can work well when applied to the right people. Unfortunately it's likely that 90% of the money will be spent for no permanent job return, and that seems like it will become an issue once it spans multiple election periods. Most successful small businesses are started with little capital, but a fair amount of time. I was fortunate that my wife's salary supported me in the years it took for mine to make money.
  - yesbut 3y ago
    We should have more public banks like North Dakota does and which are found in many countries. There is clearly a vested interest in the US by the power centers to keeping public banks from spreading.