4 ms·

You realize that the folks with these fortunes are the workers who built the companies, right? If there's one place that's "worked-owned" it's a startup. And th

• wolvesechoes 2mo ago
  > If there's one place that's "worked-owned" it's a startup. Sweetie, it is called cooperative, not startup.
  • xhkkffbf 2mo ago
    Odd that you're choosing sexist language like that. Are startups not owned by the people who work there? Cooperatives are more complicated legal structures, usually designed to unify a group of producers like farmers. The workers at cooperatives are often paid an hourly wage and nothing more.
• bygosh 2mo ago
  no offense but it doesn't sound like you understand what worker owned means. you straight up just described capital owned.
  • xhkkffbf 2mo ago
    Do the workers at a startup own shares? That means the workers own part of the company. If they chose to raise more capital, that's their decision. Even the most socialist leaning coffee shop will raise capital to pay for capital improvements.
    • JoeAltmaier 2mo ago
      A nice thought. But the early options/shares issued at a startup have been gamed to the point that only the principals can ever get a significant cash payout. THe rest of the employee shares are of a special class that may as well be called 'worthless paper'.
      • xhkkffbf 2mo ago
        That's really a different point. Most startups fail -- and it doesn't matter whether they're owned by the workers or some distant capitalist. And, yes, sometimes people are ripped off through dilution. But the reality is that startups workers usually have shares and the shares make them owners. Whether they benefit or not from the ownership isn't the question here. All you need to do is look at some union-run cooperatives that fail to understand that "worker owned" is not magic.
        • JoeAltmaier 2mo ago
          Non-voting shares? That you can't sell? How is that ownership? The rules for these shares seem to strip all ownership rights from them.
          • xhkkffbf 2mo ago
            Many ownership agreements come with limits. Some stock funds limit how much people can withdraw each month. Home "owners" associations put plenty of limits on what people can do with their "property." Do you think that some magical worker-owned cooperative would let people sell? No way. I know folks that worked at a vegan restaurant cooperative. They wanted to get another job-- but the cooperative wouldn't give them anything. Why? If they weren't working each night, they weren't going to get a percentage of the business they built. There are good reasons for lockups and, of course, you don't need to take the job.
• AngryData 2mo ago
  So everyone past the first dozen people didn't help the company?
  • xhkkffbf 2mo ago
    I don't know where you get the idea that startups only give stock to 12 people. The main reason that Google went public is that they had given stock to close to 2000 people and the law requires certain things when the cap table gets that big. And many companies give out RSUs which act like shares even if they're not. The reality is that startups ARE worker owned. It's the old, unionized companies that aren't-- although many are embracing options and RSUs.