4 ms·

What did you have in mind to make it easier? It’s already not hard for workers to split off and form a new company with whatever ownership structure they want.

What did you have in mind to make it easier? It’s already not hard for workers to split off and form a new company with whatever ownership structure they want. What’s somewhat harder is to find a way to cover your bills until the company is able to pay your salary, assuming you aren’t willing to sell part of the company in exchange for that funding. (I’m not giving you money in exchange for nothing; I’m probably not lending you money to immediately spend on salaries without collateral that will be worth something if you fail, and if you have that collateral, you could already use it to raise funds.) Unless you’re proposing some government scheme to give money for no security, I’m not sure of the form of making it easier that wouldn’t be immediately gamed.

hkt 2y ago
Investing in cooperatives isn't all that new, some sites (https://www.ethex.org.uk/ https://www.ethex.org.uk/) have a fairly long history in it. Cooperative financing options are generally debt instruments, or forms of shares which are a kind of like bonds that also confer membership and a vote. The difficulty really is in organising people into a functional company and acquiring customers ASAP. The coordination costs are high and the prospect remains risky, so very few people do this. Probably the best option for more cooperatives is to legislate the idea of a hostile takeover by employees into existence, such that a majority of employees can vote to take over a company if they can finance it's purchase. As you might imagine, certain quarters would respond badly to this.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  If they can finance the purchase (at an arms-length price), they can already buy the company; no law change is needed. The idea already exists and does not need to be legislated into existence: it’s a leveraged buyout (LBO). A law change is only needed if you want to force a sale at a lower price than the current owner(s) will accept. In other words, if you want to forcibly take the company from them for less than the price they are willing to accept, so basically seize part of the value of private property and give it to other private people. I agree that would be unpopular.
  - hkt 2y ago
    Not so: you're thinking of companies that are traded in public. I'm saying even private companies should be able to bought by their employees, at the instigation of the employees rather than the owners, and that this should apply to companies large or small. It may still be an LBO and would still be at market price, but it'd be unappealing to say the least for owners. It'd still be beneficial.
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      If it’s bought at a price that the owners voluntarily accept, they’ll be fine with it (by definition), whether previously publicly traded or privately held.
      - hkt 2y ago
        No, the idea is that a formula would apply. The reliance on voluntarily handing over from the founders is specifically what a legislative change would alter. That's the whole point of what I'm saying.
        sokoloff 2y ago
        That's a fine idea, but it's definitely not what "at market price" means, so you can probably understand the confusion in this thread.
roenxi 2y ago
I'd basically like to see worker-owned corporations being tax-privileged (maybe a 5%, maybe a 15% discount tax rate) and some QoL legal features to make it obvious to people that they are signing up for a high-risk high-reward corporate structure. If I thought the idea had serious traction I'd look up what they do in Switzerland [0] and suggest people copy that. But I'd like to see new ideas experimented with that make it easier for workers or citizens to take on controlled levels of risk. It is more a political project than an economic one; I interpret serial board members as a problem of power centralisation. The incentives shouldn't be to engage in that sort of centralisation, it can't possibly be a technically good idea. One idiot in the wrong place will cause too much damage and board members don't have time to keep track of multiple companies. It'd be good to do things that decentralise power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_(Switzerland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_(Switzerland)

hkt 2y ago

Investing in cooperatives isn't all that new, some sites (https://www.ethex.org.uk/ https://www.ethex.org.uk/) have a fairly long history in it. Cooperative financing options are generally debt instruments, or forms of shares which are a kind of like bonds that also confer membership and a vote. The difficulty really is in organising people into a functional company and acquiring customers ASAP. The coordination costs are high and the prospect remains risky, so very few people do this. Probably the best option for more cooperatives is to legislate the idea of a hostile takeover by employees into existence, such that a majority of employees can vote to take over a company if they can finance it's purchase. As you might imagine, certain quarters would respond badly to this.

sokoloff 2y ago
If they can finance the purchase (at an arms-length price), they can already buy the company; no law change is needed. The idea already exists and does not need to be legislated into existence: it’s a leveraged buyout (LBO). A law change is only needed if you want to force a sale at a lower price than the current owner(s) will accept. In other words, if you want to forcibly take the company from them for less than the price they are willing to accept, so basically seize part of the value of private property and give it to other private people. I agree that would be unpopular.
- hkt 2y ago
  Not so: you're thinking of companies that are traded in public. I'm saying even private companies should be able to bought by their employees, at the instigation of the employees rather than the owners, and that this should apply to companies large or small. It may still be an LBO and would still be at market price, but it'd be unappealing to say the least for owners. It'd still be beneficial.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    If it’s bought at a price that the owners voluntarily accept, they’ll be fine with it (by definition), whether previously publicly traded or privately held.
    - hkt 2y ago
      No, the idea is that a formula would apply. The reliance on voluntarily handing over from the founders is specifically what a legislative change would alter. That's the whole point of what I'm saying.
      - sokoloff 2y ago
        That's a fine idea, but it's definitely not what "at market price" means, so you can probably understand the confusion in this thread.

roenxi 2y ago

I'd basically like to see worker-owned corporations being tax-privileged (maybe a 5%, maybe a 15% discount tax rate) and some QoL legal features to make it obvious to people that they are signing up for a high-risk high-reward corporate structure. If I thought the idea had serious traction I'd look up what they do in Switzerland [0] and suggest people copy that. But I'd like to see new ideas experimented with that make it easier for workers or citizens to take on controlled levels of risk. It is more a political project than an economic one; I interpret serial board members as a problem of power centralisation. The incentives shouldn't be to engage in that sort of centralisation, it can't possibly be a technically good idea. One idiot in the wrong place will cause too much damage and board members don't have time to keep track of multiple companies. It'd be good to do things that decentralise power. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_(Switzerland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coop_(Switzerland)