4 ms·

>>He's giving it to his employees who presumably have worked for it with "blood and sweat" No they didn't. They were getting paid already for the value they pr

>>He's giving it to his employees who presumably have worked for it with "blood and sweat" No they didn't. They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company. Do not delude yourself, this is nothing more than a handout. >>An alternative would be passing it down through inheritance or selling to a bidder, neither of whom invest blood or sweat. So you are OK with some employees receiving a gift and you oppose the heirs receiving that same gift. Of course I'm opposed to just giving stuff away, but if you have to then leaving it to your heirs makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view. Another option, if you really want to give away your money, is to create jobs for people with nothing to do. This way they will earn that money instead of just receiving a gift. For example, fund public works and pay people who you want to help to do that job. Pay them reasonably even. Maybe even include education benefits. Isn't this a better option than just handing somebody free money? If those people do not want to do these jobs then they do not deserve the money. I'm really curious why would anybody disagree with me. Of course, there are always exceptions. There are people in the world that truly need free money. Example orphans, the elderly, disabled people. People who even if they wanted to work they simply can't. My logic is undeniable, how can you oppose anything I say? At the end of the day though we are all free to do with our money what we want. Still, I cannot help but hurt when I see money just being wasted away by giving it to people who have not earned it (heirs excluded of course). Edit: Thanks for answering. I really do believe I'm right so it is nice to have somebody explain why that may not be so instead of just getting down voted (which I don't mind). If more people could try explaining why they disagree with me that'd be great. I really want to hear why anybody thinks I'm wrong. Maybe I am wrong. I'm willing to change my mind if there is a good reason.

schrodinger 14y ago
Why "heirs excluded"? I don't understand the logic by which it's only ok to give money to your descendants... wouldn't that hurt them just the same in your worldview?
- Avshalom 14y ago
  It's almost certainly a troll, just downvote it till it gets hellbanned and move on.
  - sdfasdfa 14y ago
    I'm not. Just because I do not agree with the masses doesn't mean I'm wrong. You sound more like a troll by your comment. You would probably call Galileo a troll simply by saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. I'm serious, I really do not see the error in my logic. Your ad hominem comment adds nothing to the discussion.
  - schrodinger 14y ago
    Yea yea, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt... the last statement in their comment did indicate that they were open to changing their mind.
- sdfasdfa 14y ago
  No. It should not. What will hurt them is how you raise them (By heirs I'm talking about children). Give them the best education money can buy and beyond the essentials (food, roof, clothes) make them work for whatever else they want. Want a car? Get a summer job. Want a new video game console? Do some extra chores. Want extra money for your date? A job in the weekends would not be bad. Do you get my point? By the time they inherit money they will learn not to depend on it. It all depends on how you raise them. If you do a crappy job to begin with then even with no money they will probably be screw. Tell me I'm wrong.
  - schrodinger 14y ago
    I'm coming to agree with part of your point but just for the sake of constructive criticism your tone is off-putting, and probably the source of most of your downvotes. Also, I don't agree that distributing equity of the company that employees have worked for is a hand-out; rather, it IS teaching you to fish: you now have ownership of the company, and are more inclined to learn the implications and your interests are more directly aligned with the company. Rather than being incentivized to do the least work possible without getting fired (not saying that that is what most workers do, just that it is what a no-equity position incentivizes at least in the short-medium term), the interests of the employees are now directly aligned with the company. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.
aeturnum 14y ago
I don't want to get into this whole discussion about if the employees do or do not deserve the company, but I thought I'd take up a different angle. >...leaving it to your heirs makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view. I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally). They will almost certainly be called upon to make decisions about the company, and without expertise they'll probably do a middling job of it. It seems quite sensible that, especially in your heirs are unfamiliar with the business, that the employees should have their self-interest piqued in some way when you pass it on. After all, if you devote 20% of the company to employee equity, and the company performs 30% better as a result, your heirs will be better off because of it. It seems like the people who work at the company are most qualified to run it, and that giving them some incentive to run it well is in everyone's interest. So I wouldn't say it's clearly a bad choice, "from an evolutionary point of view," for either the heirs or the company. Also, this is completely parenthetical, but this sort of thing does not look good (even if you're right): >My logic is undeniable, how can you oppose anything I say?
- sdfasdfa 14y ago
  >>I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally) If you leave lots of money to your kids and never taught them from an early age how to handle money then it is your fault. Any reasonable parent would prepare their kids to know how to handle money. Don't be surprised if they turn out bad because you've spoiled them. And if they are not interested in running that type of company but instead they want to do something else then the solution is simple: sell the business and allow them to run their life as they see fit. If you've done a good job raising them then they should be OK.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
shaunxcode 14y ago
"They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company" Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company. In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable.
- sdfasdfa 14y ago
  >>Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company. What is your point? Doesn't seem to contradict what I said. >>In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable. You are assuming that they deserve that surplus, or really, the profits. They already got paid to generate that profit. That is the whole point of a business. What exactly is your point? I'm not going to repeat myself. I already explained in all my comments the reason of why this makes me feel uncomfortable. If you are advocating socialism or communism then lets just agree to disagree.
  - shaunxcode 14y ago
    My point is that this notion of "static remuneration" while perfectly legal (and even moral when all parties consent - though the notion of consent when under duress is another issue all together) is not the only form of viable remuneration. I refuse to just accept the dichotomy of "communism" or "free market capitalism". This is hacker news, not the glenn beck comments page. The simplification of "owner" v.s. "worker" in which either one or the other deserves the surplus entirely is false. Clearly there is labor and sacrifice involved with presenting the initial capital required to start the venture - but could this initial investment not have a half life? Why is it that once the owner has recovered their initial investment that they should then continue to retain the surplus generated by the worker? That is the real crux of the entire debate. Mathematically explain how that works out. How and why is the % of surplus a constant and not actually determined in real time based upon investment. Perhaps the opposite approach would be dynamic capitalism.
mullingitover 14y ago
> No they didn't. They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company. That's not how capitalism works. If you pay the workers exactly what they're worth, you don't make any profit. You must pay workers less than the value they deliver if you intend to make a profit.
- cardine 14y ago
  If the employer is doing his job, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
  - mullingitover 14y ago
    In a philosophical sense, sure. But the revenue is exactly the sum of its parts.
    - cardine 14y ago
      You missed my point. The owner of the company is adding a value-add of his own and that is where the profit comes from. Any halfway competent executive or manager will get more out of his employees than those employees would have done on their own.

schrodinger 14y ago

Why "heirs excluded"? I don't understand the logic by which it's only ok to give money to your descendants... wouldn't that hurt them just the same in your worldview?

Avshalom 14y ago
It's almost certainly a troll, just downvote it till it gets hellbanned and move on.
- sdfasdfa 14y ago
  I'm not. Just because I do not agree with the masses doesn't mean I'm wrong. You sound more like a troll by your comment. You would probably call Galileo a troll simply by saying that the earth was not the center of the universe. I'm serious, I really do not see the error in my logic. Your ad hominem comment adds nothing to the discussion.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  Yea yea, but trying to give the benefit of the doubt... the last statement in their comment did indicate that they were open to changing their mind.
sdfasdfa 14y ago
No. It should not. What will hurt them is how you raise them (By heirs I'm talking about children). Give them the best education money can buy and beyond the essentials (food, roof, clothes) make them work for whatever else they want. Want a car? Get a summer job. Want a new video game console? Do some extra chores. Want extra money for your date? A job in the weekends would not be bad. Do you get my point? By the time they inherit money they will learn not to depend on it. It all depends on how you raise them. If you do a crappy job to begin with then even with no money they will probably be screw. Tell me I'm wrong.
- schrodinger 14y ago
  I'm coming to agree with part of your point but just for the sake of constructive criticism your tone is off-putting, and probably the source of most of your downvotes. Also, I don't agree that distributing equity of the company that employees have worked for is a hand-out; rather, it IS teaching you to fish: you now have ownership of the company, and are more inclined to learn the implications and your interests are more directly aligned with the company. Rather than being incentivized to do the least work possible without getting fired (not saying that that is what most workers do, just that it is what a no-equity position incentivizes at least in the short-medium term), the interests of the employees are now directly aligned with the company. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

aeturnum 14y ago

I don't want to get into this whole discussion about if the employees do or do not deserve the company, but I thought I'd take up a different angle. >...leaving it to your heirs makes more sense from an evolutionary point of view. I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally). They will almost certainly be called upon to make decisions about the company, and without expertise they'll probably do a middling job of it. It seems quite sensible that, especially in your heirs are unfamiliar with the business, that the employees should have their self-interest piqued in some way when you pass it on. After all, if you devote 20% of the company to employee equity, and the company performs 30% better as a result, your heirs will be better off because of it. It seems like the people who work at the company are most qualified to run it, and that giving them some incentive to run it well is in everyone's interest. So I wouldn't say it's clearly a bad choice, "from an evolutionary point of view," for either the heirs or the company. Also, this is completely parenthetical, but this sort of thing does not look good (even if you're right): >My logic is undeniable, how can you oppose anything I say?

sdfasdfa 14y ago
>>I think you can make a strong argument that giving the company to your heirs whole-hog is a poor idea (unless those heirs are involved in the company personally) If you leave lots of money to your kids and never taught them from an early age how to handle money then it is your fault. Any reasonable parent would prepare their kids to know how to handle money. Don't be surprised if they turn out bad because you've spoiled them. And if they are not interested in running that type of company but instead they want to do something else then the solution is simple: sell the business and allow them to run their life as they see fit. If you've done a good job raising them then they should be OK.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

shaunxcode 14y ago

"They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company" Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company. In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable.

sdfasdfa 14y ago
>>Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company. What is your point? Doesn't seem to contradict what I said. >>In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable. You are assuming that they deserve that surplus, or really, the profits. They already got paid to generate that profit. That is the whole point of a business. What exactly is your point? I'm not going to repeat myself. I already explained in all my comments the reason of why this makes me feel uncomfortable. If you are advocating socialism or communism then lets just agree to disagree.
- shaunxcode 14y ago
  My point is that this notion of "static remuneration" while perfectly legal (and even moral when all parties consent - though the notion of consent when under duress is another issue all together) is not the only form of viable remuneration. I refuse to just accept the dichotomy of "communism" or "free market capitalism". This is hacker news, not the glenn beck comments page. The simplification of "owner" v.s. "worker" in which either one or the other deserves the surplus entirely is false. Clearly there is labor and sacrifice involved with presenting the initial capital required to start the venture - but could this initial investment not have a half life? Why is it that once the owner has recovered their initial investment that they should then continue to retain the surplus generated by the worker? That is the real crux of the entire debate. Mathematically explain how that works out. How and why is the % of surplus a constant and not actually determined in real time based upon investment. Perhaps the opposite approach would be dynamic capitalism.

mullingitover 14y ago

> No they didn't. They were getting paid already for the value they provided to the company. That's not how capitalism works. If you pay the workers exactly what they're worth, you don't make any profit. You must pay workers less than the value they deliver if you intend to make a profit.

cardine 14y ago
If the employer is doing his job, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  In a philosophical sense, sure. But the revenue is exactly the sum of its parts.
  - cardine 14y ago
    You missed my point. The owner of the company is adding a value-add of his own and that is where the profit comes from. Any halfway competent executive or manager will get more out of his employees than those employees would have done on their own.