Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by WalterBright on Thursday July 25, 2024 @07:51PM
(#41074655)
> unnatural
If you hire a landscaper to redo the landscaping of your property, is he thereby entitled to own a share of your property? How about the guy you hired to fix your water heater? Does he get a share, too? Is that natural?
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by defrost on Thursday July 25, 2024 @07:58PM
(#41074691)
This exemplifies a transition from "strawman argument" to "strawman dressed as a clown argument".
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by WalterBright on Thursday July 25, 2024 @08:28PM
(#41074872)
What's the salient difference between hiring a worker to help your business, and thereby being entitled to a share of your business, and hiring a worker to do some work on your house, and thereby being entitled to a share of it?
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by bryan_w on Friday July 26, 2024 @12:21AM
(#41075743)
You make a good point
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by fuzzfactor on Friday July 26, 2024 @11:33AM
(#41079483)
Very good point, you would have to make the decision yourself whether to offer shares for what type and length of service.
And if so it could be considered a (very) generous decision more often than not.
Re:Every company should be owned by its employees
by bluefirebrand on Friday July 26, 2024 @08:01AM
(#41077878)
Hiring a worker to do some work on your house is a transaction
Hiring a worker to help your business is employment
I'm sure I don't have to explain the differences between a transaction and employment?
This post is precisely about a free market economy where the (imo unnatural) disconnect between working in an enterprise and owning the products of that enterprise doesn't exist. That's all.
Not sure what "command economy" has to do with it.