[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Counting with Pictures - yuel - Oct 19, 2021 - 1:11am
 
The Obituary Page - kcar - Oct 18, 2021 - 10:06pm
 
Automotive Lust - haresfur - Oct 18, 2021 - 9:58pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - kcar - Oct 18, 2021 - 9:40pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Lazy8 - Oct 18, 2021 - 9:33pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Oct 18, 2021 - 8:32pm
 
Philly - oldviolin - Oct 18, 2021 - 5:50pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Oct 18, 2021 - 5:44pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Lazy8 - Oct 18, 2021 - 5:10pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Oct 18, 2021 - 4:21pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Oct 18, 2021 - 3:45pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Oct 18, 2021 - 10:08am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Oct 18, 2021 - 9:58am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Lazy8 - Oct 18, 2021 - 7:03am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - miamizsun - Oct 18, 2021 - 6:18am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Oct 18, 2021 - 5:28am
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Oct 17, 2021 - 4:22pm
 
What did you have for dinner? - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 3:56pm
 
Dreams - Tales from your sleep - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 2:51pm
 
China - R_P - Oct 17, 2021 - 2:29pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 1:52pm
 
Share a Website you love or hate… - Steely_D - Oct 17, 2021 - 1:50pm
 
Outstanding Covers - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 1:46pm
 
World Music - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 1:38pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - rhahl - Oct 17, 2021 - 1:30pm
 
More reggae, less Marley please - Ohmsen - Oct 17, 2021 - 12:45pm
 
And the good news is.... - Steely_D - Oct 17, 2021 - 9:50am
 
Bitcoin - westslope - Oct 17, 2021 - 9:17am
 
What are you afraid of? - Antigone - Oct 17, 2021 - 8:18am
 
More of Editors - TheKing2 - Oct 17, 2021 - 8:00am
 
Have you planned your Halloween costume yet?? - miamizsun - Oct 17, 2021 - 6:32am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Oct 16, 2021 - 7:52pm
 
True Confessions - Red_Dragon - Oct 16, 2021 - 4:49pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - haresfur - Oct 16, 2021 - 3:54pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Oct 16, 2021 - 3:10pm
 
songs that ROCK! - Ohmsen - Oct 16, 2021 - 2:30pm
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Oct 16, 2021 - 1:28pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Oct 16, 2021 - 1:08pm
 
Oregon - politics - westslope - Oct 16, 2021 - 9:24am
 
That's good advice - oldviolin - Oct 16, 2021 - 8:00am
 
How To Be Politically Correct, A Primer - miamizsun - Oct 16, 2021 - 7:49am
 
Regarding dogs - Antigone - Oct 16, 2021 - 5:20am
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Oct 15, 2021 - 9:16pm
 
Great Old Songs You Rarely Hear Anymore - KurtfromLaQuinta - Oct 15, 2021 - 8:26pm
 
Best.Idea.Ever. - Red_Dragon - Oct 15, 2021 - 7:37pm
 
Apps turning itself on at night!night! - jarro - Oct 15, 2021 - 6:16pm
 
Joe Biden - R_P - Oct 15, 2021 - 4:32pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Antigone - Oct 15, 2021 - 3:37pm
 
Britain - davidrsim - Oct 15, 2021 - 12:12pm
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Oct 15, 2021 - 12:09pm
 
Get the Quote - primm - Oct 15, 2021 - 11:48am
 
Oh GOD, they're GAY! - miamizsun - Oct 15, 2021 - 8:21am
 
Democratic Party - westslope - Oct 15, 2021 - 8:03am
 
Rolling Stones - sirdroseph - Oct 15, 2021 - 3:18am
 
BillyGee's Greatest Segues - ScottN - Oct 14, 2021 - 8:31pm
 
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes (and Taxes) - islander - Oct 14, 2021 - 4:17pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Oct 14, 2021 - 1:59pm
 
Health Care - Red_Dragon - Oct 14, 2021 - 9:03am
 
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc. - Ohmsen - Oct 14, 2021 - 8:03am
 
NORGE (Norway) - Ohmsen - Oct 14, 2021 - 6:39am
 
Economix - Ohmsen - Oct 14, 2021 - 6:12am
 
Unresearched Conspiracy Theories - Ohmsen - Oct 14, 2021 - 6:01am
 
Unquiet Minds - Mental Health Forum - miamizsun - Oct 14, 2021 - 4:45am
 
Terrorist Watch! - Red_Dragon - Oct 14, 2021 - 4:37am
 
Africa!! - sirdroseph - Oct 14, 2021 - 4:30am
 
Australia has Disappeared - whatshisname - Oct 13, 2021 - 6:55pm
 
Alexa won't play RP except on Tune-in - jarro - Oct 13, 2021 - 12:47pm
 
Shuttle, ISS and other Real Space Ships - ScottFromWyoming - Oct 13, 2021 - 11:19am
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - black321 - Oct 13, 2021 - 11:16am
 
TV shows you watch - marko86 - Oct 13, 2021 - 9:08am
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - Jiggz - Oct 13, 2021 - 8:22am
 
THREE WORDS - Ohmsen - Oct 12, 2021 - 10:56pm
 
Immigration - Ohmsen - Oct 12, 2021 - 10:42pm
 
possible to ban an artist from my streams ? - oldviolin - Oct 12, 2021 - 8:11pm
 
Free Stuff & Swap - oldviolin - Oct 12, 2021 - 8:10pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Post to this Topic
Ohmsen

Ohmsen Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 8, 2021 - 12:50pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
And this is capitalism's fault?

Tariffs and trade wars are not capitalist approaches. Politics distorts markets, causing problems, and market players solve problems. Goods get to customers and Tijuana gets a new warehouse, a bunch of Tijuanans get jobs breaking down shipments. It's less efficient than a capitalist approach, but it gets the job done.

You're welcome.

Didn't say that, but thanks for adding to the confusion.

Capitalism is perverse in itself. As a system created by man, it serves the purpose self-destruction of man. 
So, no. This is not capitalism's fault.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 8, 2021 - 11:40am

 Ohmsen wrote:
Capitalism in its final stages:
Amazon has built a fat logistics center in Tijuana. But that's not there to serve the Mexican market. No no.
It is there to import goods from China via Mexico. The exploited locals then break them down into parts with a value of less than $800.

These parts can then be imported from Mexico to the USA. The largest Amazon logistics center in the United States is less than 20 minutes away in San Diego. There the parts are then reassembled and can flood the US market.

Why are they doing this? Because Trump's trade war has led to heavy punitive tariffs. Mexico has no punitive tariffs against China, however, and NAFTA has a clause that goods under $800 can be imported duty-free.

And this is capitalism's fault?

Tariffs and trade wars are not capitalist approaches. Politics distorts markets, causing problems, and market players solve problems. Goods get to customers and Tijuana gets a new warehouse, a bunch of Tijuanans get jobs breaking down shipments. It's less efficient than a capitalist approach, but it gets the job done.

You're welcome.
Ohmsen

Ohmsen Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Sep 8, 2021 - 9:51am

Capitalism in its final stages:
Amazon has built a fat logistics center in Tijuana. But that's not there to serve the Mexican market. No no.
It is there to import goods from China via Mexico. The exploited locals then break them down into parts with a value of less than $800.

These parts can then be imported from Mexico to the USA. The largest Amazon logistics center in the United States is less than 20 minutes away in San Diego. There the parts are then reassembled and can flood the US market.

Why are they doing this? Because Trump's trade war has led to heavy punitive tariffs. Mexico has no punitive tariffs against China, however, and NAFTA has a clause that goods under $800 can be imported duty-free.
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2021 - 8:47am

 Lazy8 wrote:

It's tax law, it doesn't have to make sense. But from my limited understanding of the case the employee was given stock options that anticipated a rising stock price, but the stock fell disastrously in the '99 tech bubble collapse. When she was terminated the IRS valued them at what she would have had to pay for the options had she bought them (back when the company's prospects were better) rather than the value they had when they parted ways.

It never made sense to me either, but there she was—taxed out of her house and out of a job.


going off course, but...sounds like she exercised some of the options when she was employed and held onto the stock (this triggered the tax on the difference of the stock value at that time, and her option price), but never sold the stock until later when the shares collapsed, at which point she could have had a capital loss.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2021 - 8:30am

 black321 wrote:
-why would you pay taxes on unrealized option gains? Only taxed once you sell, and if its a big tax bill, it was also big pay day.If the option is upside down, dont exercise.

It's tax law, it doesn't have to make sense. But from my limited understanding of the case the employee was given stock options that anticipated a rising stock price, but the stock fell disastrously in the '99 tech bubble collapse. When she was terminated the IRS valued them at what she would have had to pay for the options had she bought them (back when the company's prospects were better) rather than the value they had when they parted ways.

It never made sense to me either, but there she was—taxed out of her house and out of a job.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2021 - 8:19am

 islander wrote:
I also wouldn't so hastily discard the contributions of the janitor and forklift driver. They may be more easily replaceable skillsets and might need some different handling, but if you can't see their impact I'd wonder how you how you decide who to incentivize. 

It depends a lot on the role you let those people assume. If you hand somebody a broom and say "Sweep, put the broom away when you're done" you aren't getting much value out of that person's work. There are people whose work value is really that low, and from the company's perspective they are only as valuable as the task.

If you let the person with the broom be creative, if you aren't hobbled by work rules that say janitors sweep, and setup guys set up, and machinists machine...then the person with the broom can become a master machinist or run the company. People can grow out of their roles and their time can become too valuable to spend it running a broom.

I've been that guy. I've also been the guy in a union shop with no prospects beyond the task I was first given. I don't work there anymore.


black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2021 - 7:10am

 Lazy8 wrote:

This isn't such a rare thing. Since college I've worked for 7 companies, from huge publicly-traded corporations to mom&pop shops with fewer than a dozen employees. All but two offered some form of equity or profit sharing.     -good for you, but this is rare

Depending on how a company is organized equity may be unworkably complex and/or impossible for the employees to convert to actual spendable money. Profit sharing is a lot easier to implement, but can be equally unworkable in, say, the startup realm—where a company may never, during its entire arc from garage to acquisition, turn a profit.    -true, profit sharing works better for some, equity others (like a startup)

The MBA set will tell you that the results from such schemes are decidedly mixed, and I know people who were badly screwed when the stock options they were given were upside down when they and the company parted ways. Like have-to-sell-your-house-to-pay-taxes-on-unrealized-profits bad.   -why would you pay taxes on unrealized option gains? Only taxed once you sell, and if its a big tax bill, it was also big pay day. If the option is upside down, dont exercise.

They do help in a general sense of building good will, but day-to-day the incentives are all wrong. If I have to make some kind of sacrifice to help the company prosper I pay 100% of the cost but reap a minuscule fraction of the rewards. And goodwill from employees depends a lot more on how they're treated day-to-day than the envelope they get twice a year. Of my seven companies the one work environment I'd return to in a heartbeat offered none of that. -again, sounds like you've worked for some good companies...good for you, because its not too common. I attend dozens of group meetings a year, and have to say while most are content, the % that are truly happy with their employer measure 10% or less. 

While we're talking anecdotes I've seen a few companies that went the employee-owned route fold because the owners were completely inflexible about the changing business environment. You have a hard time laying off an owner, even if the task they did for the company is no longer useful. And how do you appropriately compensate a new employee. when the existing employees don't want to dilute their equity? You wind up with a two-tiered hierarchy that can be pretty toxic  .-your talking mostly small cos here...you issue all the shares initially, and hold in a pool to distribute...or preferred equity would address the dilution problem.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that it won't fix a bad relationship or build trust where there is none. 




islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 29, 2021 - 6:40am

 Lazy8 wrote:

I guess I'm just lucky? The circles I've run in (mostly, broadly speaking, the tech sphere) have been the opposite: obsessed with keeping good people and incentivizing them to stay. Or should we just throw down, and my anecdotes can beat up yours?

If you can tie an incentive to a particular behavior or outcome you can do some real good with them. You can also sow some serious discord and jealousy. Hard to see the impact on the company's prospects of, say, a forklift operator or a janitor—and thus hard to reward them for it.


I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm just saying that there is a range and if you get people invested they will perform better. I don't think having a company stock line in the 401K is giving people an equity position.  I'm also trying to point out that it's not altruistic. There is a genuine and demonstrable (in my anecdotal experience) upside that can be shown to a board of directors on a spreadsheet.  

I also wouldn't so hastily discard the contributions of the janitor and forklift driver. They may be more easily replaceable skillsets and might need some different handling, but if you can't see their impact I'd wonder how you how you decide who to incentivize. 
NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 10:20pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I guess I'm just lucky? The circles I've run in (mostly, broadly speaking, the tech sphere) have been the opposite: ..

That shows. 


.. Hard to see the impact on the company's prospects of, say, a forklift operator or a janitor—and thus hard to reward them for it.

QED

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 10:05pm

Interesting discussion and not far removed from my experience here in Germany. As Islander says, it is all about aligning interests. Lazy's objections also apply in mainland Europe though too. If you have too much employee representation you can create a pretty sclerotic organization and one that can end up being even more unfair or even outright corrupt.  And there have been some notable failures. However, no representation of employee interests is the other extreme. After all, employees are a pretty major stakeholder in most companies, along with creditors, shareholders and wider society who all get to have some say in how a company is governed through covenants, resolutions and regulations. Not allowing employees any avenue to have a say is generally considered bad management here.
 
Consequently, there is a law on codetermination here in Germany. Any company with over 500 employees must assign a third of all seats on the supervisory board to employee representatives. Note that Germany still has a two-tier governing structure that pretty rigorously separates the executive  (managing board) from oversight (supervisory board). The latter sets the broad strategy, appoints the management board and approves major decisions, but most other decisions are made by the management board. 
This separation is crucial when it comes to codetermination as it gives managers more freedom to make the best management decisions. But it also gives employees a major voice in the governing structures. Note this is talking about governance, not about ownership.

In terms of employee ownership, someone has already posted a link to all the German companies that have some kind of collective ownership, there a number of models out there and some very successful ones. However, the key factor IMO is not employee ownership per se, but the corporate culture. Here too, you want to get people on board and pull together as a team. Compensation, dividends and other financial rewards are part of this, but by no means the only factor. Conversely, working your butt off for little job security and no rewards for a company that pays massive dividends to the owners is simply not very motivating. Yet working for a company that is well managed and successful is in and of itself motivating, even if you have no actual stock ownership.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 9:44pm

 islander wrote:
It's all about aligning the incentive with the behaviors you want.   These were mostly active tech guys who wanted to be in the mix. Also smaller companies, so they were pretty close to where the big money was and there was resentment before they got a chance to participate.   I'm not saying it's the only solution, but it was a pretty obvious one, and there was a ton of resistance by people who ultimately benefitted greatly from it. A couple of them continued to resent that I pushed it through even when they knew they made money because of it. That is a sick system, and people who were just jerks in a position of power.   

I have several ideas that the c-suite hates (I don't have sick time in my teams, people take the time they need on the honor system). Directors are usually convinced that workers are somehow motivated differently than they are. Mostly it comes down to treating people well, and setting expectations. 

On the topic, my experience has been that the system we have creates an all or nothing, winner take all attitude. It pervades every part of the business.  People often see it through a zero sum lens, but that's rarely the best approach.  Maybe my experience is uniquely bad, but if you look across the behaviors of most companies it doesn't seem that uncommon.

I guess I'm just lucky? The circles I've run in (mostly, broadly speaking, the tech sphere) have been the opposite: obsessed with keeping good people and incentivizing them to stay. Or should we just throw down, and my anecdotes can beat up yours?

If you can tie an incentive to a particular behavior or outcome you can do some real good with them. You can also sow some serious discord and jealousy. Hard to see the impact on the company's prospects of, say, a forklift operator or a janitor—and thus hard to reward them for it.
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 9:14pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

This isn't such a rare thing. Since college I've worked for 7 companies, from huge publicly-traded corporations to mom&pop shops with fewer than a dozen employees. All but two offered some form of equity or profit sharing. 

Depending on how a company is organized equity may be unworkably complex and/or impossible for the employees to convert to actual spendable money. Profit sharing is a lot easier to implement, but can be equally unworkable in, say, the startup realm—where a company may never, during its entire arc from garage to acquisition, turn a profit.

The MBA set will tell you that the results from such schemes are decidedly mixed, and I know people who were badly screwed when the stock options they were given were upside down when they and the company parted ways. Like have-to-sell-your-house-to-pay-taxes-on-unrealized-profits bad.

They do help in a general sense of building good will, but day-to-day the incentives are all wrong. If I have to make some kind of sacrifice to help the company prosper I pay 100% of the cost but reap a minuscule fraction of the rewards. And goodwill from employees depends a lot more on how they're treated day-to-day than the envelope they get twice a year. Of my seven companies the one work environment I'd return to in a heartbeat offered none of that.

While we're talking anecdotes I've seen a few companies that went the employee-owned route fold because the owners were completely inflexible about the changing business environment. You have a hard time laying off an owner, even if the task they did for the company is no longer useful. And how do you appropriately compensate a new employee. when the existing employees don't want to dilute their equity? You wind up with a two-tiered hierarchy that can be pretty toxic.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that it won't fix a bad relationship or build trust where there is none. 

It's all about aligning the incentive with the behaviors you want.   These were mostly active tech guys who wanted to be in the mix. Also smaller companies, so they were pretty close to where the big money was and there was resentment before they got a chance to participate.   I'm not saying it's the only solution, but it was a pretty obvious one, and there was a ton of resistance by people who ultimately benefitted greatly from it. A couple of them continued to resent that I pushed it through even when they knew they made money because of it. That is a sick system, and people who were just jerks in a position of power.   

I have several ideas that the c-suite hates (I don't have sick time in my teams, people take the time they need on the honor system). Directors are usually convinced that workers are somehow motivated differently than they are. Mostly it comes down to treating people well, and setting expectations. 

On the topic, my experience has been that the system we have creates an all or nothing, winner take all attitude. It pervades every part of the business.  People often see it through a zero sum lens, but that's rarely the best approach.  Maybe my experience is uniquely bad, but if you look across the behaviors of most companies it doesn't seem that uncommon. 

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 9:14pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

This isn't such a rare thing. Since college I've worked for 7 companies, from huge publicly-traded corporations to mom&pop shops with fewer than a dozen employees. All but two offered some form of equity or profit sharing. 

Depending on how a company is organized equity may be unworkably complex and/or impossible for the employees to convert to actual spendable money. Profit sharing is a lot easier to implement, but can be equally unworkable in, say, the startup realm—where a company may never, during its entire arc from garage to acquisition, turn a profit.

The MBA set will tell you that the results from such schemes are decidedly mixed, and I know people who were badly screwed when the stock options they were given were upside down when they and the company parted ways. Like have-to-sell-your-house-to-pay-taxes-on-unrealized-profits bad.

They do help in a general sense of building good will, but day-to-day the incentives are all wrong. If I have to make some kind of sacrifice to help the company prosper I pay 100% of the cost but reap a minuscule fraction of the rewards. And goodwill from employees depends a lot more on how they're treated day-to-day than the envelope they get twice a year. Of my seven companies the one work environment I'd return to in a heartbeat offered none of that.

While we're talking anecdotes I've seen a few companies that went the employee-owned route fold because the owners were completely inflexible about the changing business environment. You have a hard time laying off an owner, even if the task they did for the company is no longer useful. And how do you appropriately compensate a new employee. when the existing employees don't want to dilute their equity? You wind up with a two-tiered hierarchy that can be pretty toxic.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that it won't fix a bad relationship or build trust where there is none. 

It's all about aligning the incentive with the behaviors you want.   These were mostly active tech guys who wanted to be in the mix. Also smaller companies, so they were pretty close to where the big money was and there was resentment before they got a chance to participate.   I'm not saying it's the only solution, but it was a pretty obvious one, and there was a ton of resistance by people who ultimately benefitted greatly from it. A couple of them continued to resent that I pushed it through even when they knew they made money because of it. That is a sick system, and people who were just jerks in a position of power.   

I have several ideas that the c-suite hates (I don't have sick time in my teams, people take the time they need on the honor system). Directors are usually convinced that workers are somehow motivated differently than they are. Mostly it comes down to treating people well, and setting expectations. 

On the topic, my experience has been that the system we have creates an all or nothing, winner take all attitude. It pervades every part of the business.  People often see it through a zero sum lens, but that's rarely the best approach.  Maybe my experience is uniquely bad, but if you look across the behaviors of most companies it doesn't seem that uncommon. 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 2:42pm

 islander wrote:
It wasn't just altruistic. I made money as well and I got a lot of sway within the larger corporate behemoth because my company performed significantly better than average and had better customer reviews.  

It just amazes me that it was/is so hard.  Often it is hard to align incentives with the actions you want from people. But this one is pretty straightforward - you want workers to care and be vested in the outcome of their work, give them a piece of the result. If the result is 35% better overall, but you have to give them 10% of it, you are still 20% better off than you would have been before. 

It's the same mentality that leads to being against all taxes. I'd rather have less so that no one else gets some of  'mine'.  

This isn't such a rare thing. Since college I've worked for 7 companies, from huge publicly-traded corporations to mom&pop shops with fewer than a dozen employees. All but two offered some form of equity or profit sharing. 

Depending on how a company is organized equity may be unworkably complex and/or impossible for the employees to convert to actual spendable money. Profit sharing is a lot easier to implement, but can be equally unworkable in, say, the startup realm—where a company may never, during its entire arc from garage to acquisition, turn a profit.

The MBA set will tell you that the results from such schemes are decidedly mixed, and I know people who were badly screwed when the stock options they were given were upside down when they and the company parted ways. Like have-to-sell-your-house-to-pay-taxes-on-unrealized-profits bad.

They do help in a general sense of building good will, but day-to-day the incentives are all wrong. If I have to make some kind of sacrifice to help the company prosper I pay 100% of the cost but reap a minuscule fraction of the rewards. And goodwill from employees depends a lot more on how they're treated day-to-day than the envelope they get twice a year. Of my seven companies the one work environment I'd return to in a heartbeat offered none of that.

While we're talking anecdotes I've seen a few companies that went the employee-owned route fold because the owners were completely inflexible about the changing business environment. You have a hard time laying off an owner, even if the task they did for the company is no longer useful. And how do you appropriately compensate a new employee. when the existing employees don't want to dilute their equity? You wind up with a two-tiered hierarchy that can be pretty toxic.

I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that it won't fix a bad relationship or build trust where there is none. 
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 1:16pm

 islander wrote:


It wasn't just altruistic. I made money as well and I got a lot of sway within the larger corporate behemoth because my company performed significantly better than average and had better customer reviews.  

It just amazes me that it was/is so hard.  Often it is hard to align incentives with the actions you want from people. But this one is pretty straightforward - you want workers to care and be vested in the outcome of their work, give them a piece of the result. If the result is 35% better overall, but you have to give them 10% of it, you are still 20% better off than you would have been before. 

It's the same mentality that leads to being against all taxes. I'd rather have less so that no one else gets some of  'mine'.  

You make a lot of sense. I hope your efforts inspired similar arrangements elsewhere. 

I'd be very interested to read your take on the details of these programs. As far as I can tell Germany is far more open to power- and ownership-sharing with workers and it seems to have worked out for all involved.  
westslope

westslope Avatar

Location: BC sage brush steppe


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 11:04am

big thumbs up islander!

Sometimes I wonder if many private company executives should have paid more attention to anthropologists and the 'gift-exchange' story.    Or modern economic theorizing on the function of the west coast potlatch.  

There are still too many running around who act as if they are entitled to a large, inexpensive, well-behaved labour force.  That explains in part the incredible mess that US immigration has become.  
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 10:35am

 black321 wrote:

Good for you for pursuing it. 



It wasn't just altruistic. I made money as well and I got a lot of sway within the larger corporate behemoth because my company performed significantly better than average and had better customer reviews.  

It just amazes me that it was/is so hard.  Often it is hard to align incentives with the actions you want from people. But this one is pretty straightforward - you want workers to care and be vested in the outcome of their work, give them a piece of the result. If the result is 35% better overall, but you have to give them 10% of it, you are still 20% better off than you would have been before. 

It's the same mentality that leads to being against all taxes. I'd rather have less so that no one else gets some of  'mine'.  
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 9:36am

 islander wrote:


I have been senior leadership/management at several companies. Every time I've fought hard to get a percentage of equity to have available to the workers. Every time it has been a fight with the directors. And every time I've managed to implement it, the workers are happier,  more productive and more involved in the workplace.  The returns on that tiny investment have been huge. In the end, the major stakeholders made more money despite holding a tiny fraction less of the company. I'm still baffled at how hard it was to make those arguments and convince people that it's the right thing to do BOTH for moral and monetary reasons.

Good for you for pursuing it. 

NoEnzLefttoSplit

NoEnzLefttoSplit Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 9:31am

 islander wrote:


I have been senior leadership/management at several companies. Every time I've fought hard to get a percentage of equity to have available to the workers. Every time it has been a fight with the directors. And every time I've managed to implement it, the workers are happier,  more productive and more involved in the workplace.  The returns on that tiny investment have been huge. In the end, the major stakeholders made more money despite holding a tiny fraction less of the company. I'm still baffled at how hard it was to make those arguments and convince people that it's the right thing to do BOTH for moral and monetary reasons.


because socialism 
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Jul 28, 2021 - 8:46am

 black321 wrote:

A major problem with our current market ownership form of capitalism is it ultimately leads to excessive accumulation of capital, creating both monetary and political inequality (ring any bells with our current cultural wars?). 
Instead, I think a form of cooperative capitalism is a better system. Cooperative cap where equity ownership is "spread out" among all the major stakeholders. 



I have been senior leadership/management at several companies. Every time I've fought hard to get a percentage of equity to have available to the workers. Every time it has been a fight with the directors. And every time I've managed to implement it, the workers are happier,  more productive and more involved in the workplace.  The returns on that tiny investment have been huge. In the end, the major stakeholders made more money despite holding a tiny fraction less of the company. I'm still baffled at how hard it was to make those arguments and convince people that it's the right thing to do BOTH for moral and monetary reasons.
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next