4 ms·
You don't have a solution unless you can propose a way this gets legislated and executed. No hand waving. How specifically does this work? Suppose it is day one
by nfw2 4mo ago
You don't have a solution unless you can propose a way this gets legislated and executed. No hand waving. How specifically does this work? Suppose it is day one of my shares being worth more than 100m. What happens?
- lkjdsklf 4mo agoIt's pretty easy. You can just cap total compensation for executives relative to the lowest paid worker and include equity in that calculation. If you want to pay yourself, 10 million a year in stock, great... You need to pay the lowest paid person 10k in stock or whatever. Or, you can mandate that after a certain size a worker owned trust/union will own some percentage of the company. There's dozens of ways you could address this problem. Each have pros/cons. It's not that hard to fix if we actually wanted to fix it though.
- nfw2 4mo agoThe founders already have the equity, they aren't receiving more on an ongoing basis.
- lkjdsklf 4mo agoWe’re not talking about founders. We’re talking about executives. Executives do get equity as part of their compensation and it’s a huge reason for the massive disparity in wealth. This is well studied stuff.
- therealdrag0 4mo agoWhy are we not talking about founders? They are the most likely to have obscene wealth.
- deaux 4mo agoYou've asked this about 10 times in this thread, I've provided a very straightforward manner elsewhere as a reply to you and am eagerly looking forward on what you come up with to claim that it's impossible.
- nfw2 4mo ago> I am eagerly looking forward on what you come up with to claim that it's impossible. Since you aren't willing to engage in a discussion in good faith, implying whatever I have to say about your 5th-grader-level economic plan to just seize all the shares is bs, I recommend you ask chatgpt why it doesn't work.
- deaux 4mo agoMy latest reply to you was "Yes.". Might want to feed the thread to chatgpt and ask it if that's "not willing to engage in a discussion in good faith".
- therealdrag0 4mo agoI didn’t say I did have a solution :). There’s value on agreeing or disagreeing that a problem exists without needing a solution. Dismissing a problem based on the viability of a solution is a strange fallacy.