Maybe Companies Should Not Be Bought Or Sold But Given To The Workers Who Built Them

If I were a lefty, I would not see any problem with lifetime stock ownership after I left the job. I would quit as soon as I got my hands on the stock.

Lefties do not understand the importance of the guy who starts up a business and has to pay the rent. Employees have nothing to lose but a job, but the guy who starts the business has everything to lose. Employees will never understand the responsibility of owning and running a business or company if they didn't build it.

I am a progressive who owns small businesses. Just disregarding the whole technical problems with doing it, I think giving people stock in their employer would be a mistake. The better approach would be mandatory 401K or IRA plans that cannot be tapped into until disability or retirement that can be left to next generations. Labor is such a dropping input in terms of importance and profit margins are so thin in a global economy that people need to be able to access of the fruits of licensing, intellectual property, and huge volume sales just to eek out a decent retirement, I can see no other realistic option that avoids the pitfalls of putting one's eggs in the wrong basket. Instead of a $15 minimum wage the left's better policy would be a $9MW and a $2-$3/hour retirement account contribution. That would be $4k-$6K per year for retirement. if not a fixed amount then a fixed percentage like 10-15% of their wages. Do it for all workers regardless of hours they work, and you will be setting people up from day 1.
 
I am a progressive who owns small businesses. Just disregarding the whole technical problems with doing it, I think giving people stock in their employer would be a mistake. The better approach would be mandatory 401K or IRA plans that cannot be tapped into until disability or retirement that can be left to next generations. Labor is such a dropping input in terms of importance and profit margins are so thin in a global economy that people need to be able to access of the fruits of licensing, intellectual property, and huge volume sales just to eek out a decent retirement, I can see no other realistic option that avoids the pitfalls of putting one's eggs in the wrong basket. Instead of a $15 minimum wage the left's better policy would be a $9MW and a $2-$3/hour retirement account contribution. That would be $4k-$6K per year for retirement. if not a fixed amount then a fixed percentage like 10-15% of their wages. Do it for all workers regardless of hours they work, and you will be setting people up from day 1.


Commies won't stop trying to take other people's shit until nobody has anything. Retirement accounts that can be passed on upon demise would eventually catch the attention of younger generations of commies who didn't earn it. Commies will always be trying to take companies and businesses that they didn't build, they will always have their eyes on the wealthiest people's money, and they will always be after something that they didn't earn. The only thing we can do is keep them down, or they will bring us down too.
 
Employees would do the job easily. They actually are doing it every day. If an owner gets killed in a car crash, the business goes on...in almost all cases. Rightys always overestimate the importance of management and owners. They don't know who does the real work. Elitists always are over sold on themselves like Trump is.

That is so incredibly not true. Just because the workers know where the brooms and toilet paper are doesn't mean they can run the business. Workers worry about getting to the next paid holiday. Owners don't get paid holidays. It is January and I am already planning shit that will not happen until October and preparing for things that won't need to be done until two or three years from now. It isn't as if people are more or less capable. It is that they require completely different mindsets. Workers mindsight is more myopic and in the here and now.
 
Commies won't stop trying to take other people's shit until nobody has anything. Retirement accounts that can be passed on upon demise would eventually catch the attention of younger generations of commies who didn't earn it. Commies will always be trying to take companies and businesses that they didn't build, they will always have their eyes on the wealthiest people's money, and they will always be after something that they didn't earn. The only thing we can do is keep them down, or they will bring us down too.

I didn't earn the real estate my great granny amassed being a loan shark in the depression, but I will gladly keep my share of it :whoa:
 
Employees would do the job easily. They actually are doing it every day. If an owner gets killed in a car crash, the business goes on...in almost all cases. Rightys always overestimate the importance of management and owners. They don't know who does the real work. Elitists always are over sold on themselves like Trump is.

I can't tell you how many times I have heard non famous bands do covers of Beatles songs. Some of them sound fantastic, but they simply cannot produce new Beatles songs. The only ones who could ever pilot the Beatles ship were the Beatles, and even they had problems doing it.
 
I didn't earn the real estate my great granny amassed being a loan shark in the depression, but I will gladly keep my share of it :whoa:

You better keep an eye on it, since commies already have their eyes on it. Socialists want to get hold of it and divvy it up for "the greater good", and they know you don't really need it.
 
My earliest contact with socialism was when I was just a kid, and we had lots of chickens running loose on the farm. If I threw out a food scrap, they would all come running to get it. One would pick it up and run with it, and the other ten chickens would chase him till he dropped it. At that point, another chicken would pick up whatever was left and run with it. Ten chickens would again put up a chase, and the whole cycle would repeat itself until the food scrap was gone.
 
Hello 10DayUserName,

And if you are in the typewriter manufacturing business and some freak named Bill something or the other comes along with the idea of building computers in his garage then you are unemployed and have lost all your wealth and retirement planning in 5 years.

Nowhere have I suggested that a co-op formed in this manner should not compete on the open market with contemporary products. Existing co-ops already do just that. Can you please come up with a more challenging argument?
 
Hello 10DayUserName,



Nowhere have I suggested that a co-op formed in this manner should not compete on the open market with contemporary products. Existing co-ops already do just that. Can you please come up with a more challenging argument?

I did not say they should not compete, but there is a time in every company in which they cannot compete. Typewriters were replaced by computers; entire companies go under because they are functionally obsolete by the time they open the doors; facebooks replace myspaces.
 
You better keep an eye on it, since commies already have their eyes on it. Socialists want to get hold of it and divvy it up for "the greater good", and they know you don't really need it.

I have some redneck tenants who know what to do with commies.
 
Hello 10DayUserName,

I am a progressive who owns small businesses. Just disregarding the whole technical problems with doing it, I think giving people stock in their employer would be a mistake. The better approach would be mandatory 401K or IRA plans that cannot be tapped into until disability or retirement that can be left to next generations. Labor is such a dropping input in terms of importance and profit margins are so thin in a global economy that people need to be able to access of the fruits of licensing, intellectual property, and huge volume sales just to eek out a decent retirement, I can see no other realistic option that avoids the pitfalls of putting one's eggs in the wrong basket. Instead of a $15 minimum wage the left's better policy would be a $9MW and a $2-$3/hour retirement account contribution. That would be $4k-$6K per year for retirement. if not a fixed amount then a fixed percentage like 10-15% of their wages. Do it for all workers regardless of hours they work, and you will be setting people up from day 1.

And some of those workers at that wage would qualify for government assistance programs. It is absurd for taxpayers to be subsidizing workers of a profit-generating business. Why have average wages not risen in proportion to executive earnings? Where is the rising tide that lifts all boats? Why are the rich getting richer as average wages barely keep pace with inflation? I will tell you why. Because capitalism has maximized profits at the expense of the lowest paid workers. Homes foreclosed on in the Great Recession have been purchased by large financial institutions and are being rented out at payments which could be paying off a mortgage, Except the occupants will never own a home because they can't get out of credit card or student debt. As pay and benefits are downsized in jobs, and workers become increasingly dependent on credit just to live paycheck to paycheck (78% of workers,) America is creating a debt bubble that could topple the recent economic gains. Workers mired in such debts are unable to save for retirement, and many cannot even come up with $400 cash on any given day. They are one major financial event away from bankruptcy at all times.

$15-

It's coming.
 
Goodbye Evmetro,

Lefties would run the companies into the ground the way they burn their own towns down rioting, and then move onto the next free company. Animals can't have nice shit.

PIP violation. Disrespect shown. Permanent Ignore.

We have nothing further to talk about.

I am always happy to discuss differing constructive viewpoints, philosophies and approaches in a civil manner. Hatred and insults are not part of that.

Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.
 
Last edited:
Hello 10DayUserName,

I did not say they should not compete, but there is a time in every company in which they cannot compete. Typewriters were replaced by computers; entire companies go under because they are functionally obsolete by the time they open the doors; facebooks replace myspaces.

You have not shown that a worker managed co-op is any less capable of staying current with the market than an elite management company is. Many businesses managed by dedicated executives make poor decisions which ruin the company. Actually most small business start-ups fail within a few years.
 
Goodbye Evmetro,



PIP violation. Disrespect shown. Permanent Ignore.

We have nothing further to talk about.

Thank you. I work pretty hard to disturb lefties, but I wish I could figure out how to get Domer and some of the other lefties to put me on ignore. Maybe if I figure out what a pip is....
 
Employees would do the job easily. They actually are doing it every day. If an owner gets killed in a car crash, the business goes on...in almost all cases. Rightys always overestimate the importance of management and owners. They don't know who does the real work. Elitists always are over sold on themselves like Trump is.

Leftists, meanwhile, always underestimate the crucial, utmost importance of the property rights of everyone (besides themselves, of course). America was literally founded upon the liberal theory of natural law. Get with it, or GTFO.
 
How does wealth extraction work to create extreme wealth inequality?

Well, capitalism always looks for ways to make more profits, increase profits. Small capitalism is more directly connected to people. Big capitalism is not, and that produces the extreme wealth inequality.

If a company is begun by a highly motivated capitalist who builds it from scratch and eventually gets wildly profitable, then he gets rich. And when he wants to retire and enjoy his wealth, he sells out.

When he began that company he had a few workers. He was personally acquainted with each of them. He hired them, he promoted them or fired them. He gave raises to the good ones and hired more to build the company. He knew every worker personally. He could relate to what happens to them as a result of his decisions. He felt a responsibility to be good to them because they are the most important part of the company.

If the company got big, an HR department took over the hiring and firing. The leaders and decision-makers of the company no longer even know the people who work for them. That's important. Oh, the owner knows the higher level workers and the long-timers, but all those new people never even met him. And the decision-makers are making decisions for the company without even connecting to what those decisions mean to the workers. Leadership is disassociated from the rank and file. Leadership in this position is able to make tougher decisions which have devastating effects to the workers. And it doesn't bother them as much because they don't even know the people who suffer the fate of those decisions.

What if, instead of this trajectory, there was a different path?

What if big companies were required to have representatives of labor on their boards? Somebody to 'bring it home.' Somebody to champion the worker's rights?

What if, when the owner was ready to sell out, that board was shifted to be entirely representative of the workers? What if workers could vote and fire a leader who did not live up to this responsibility? That would have a much better outcome for workers and communities where the company resides.

Well?

Where would the money come from to pay off the original owner when he sells out?

How about the profits the company is earning? What if THAT money was used to pay the owner for selling the company?

And what if the new owners of the company are actually hired by the workers so that they work for the workers?

This sounds a whole lot better for society than a company focused on one thing: more profits for the owners.

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

A healthy sustainable business model would not only generate profits for the owners and workers but would also have a responsibility to the workers and the communities they reside in.

Then you would never see your Detroits and your Flint Michigans, your devastated communities that capitalism left behind.

And if companies could not be bought and sold like products, then there would be no giant multi-national conglomerates that are so powerful they tell nations what to do.

Why would we want capitalism telling us what to do?

We should be the ones who control capitalism, not the other way around.

Jefferson would have agreed as would Adam Smith.
 
Last edited:
Leftists, meanwhile, always underestimate the crucial, utmost importance of the property rights of everyone (besides themselves, of course). America was literally founded upon the liberal theory of natural law. Get with it, or GTFO.

Since you have no clue as to what Natural Law is one can then excuse your obvious ignorance.
 
Leftists, meanwhile, always underestimate the crucial, utmost importance of the property rights of everyone (besides themselves, of course). America was literally founded upon the liberal theory of natural law. Get with it, or GTFO.

Since you have no clue as to what Natural Law is one can then excuse your obvious ignorance.

https://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/the-science-of-economics/land-tenure.html

Recognising that human beings and human societies are part of the natural world George is clear that there must be laws of nature that operate through them and that they need to be discovered, described and acknowledged if man is to realise all his natural potential. The essential characteristic of the natural law that Henry George refers to is that it always operates, whatever people will, think, or do – irrespective of whether it is acknowledged or ignored. Problems arise in the socio-economic sphere, just as they do in the physical process of making artefacts, if the relevant natural laws are ignored. Hence George says: “the evils arising from the unjust and unequal distribution of wealth...are not imposed by natural laws.... they spring solely from social maladjustments which ignore natural laws”. He here identifies the source of “the social problem” as man-made - not natural.

Probably the most familiar example of the inviolable nature of a natural law is the one that we call ‘the law of gravity’ – it operates irrespective of whether humans acknowledge or ignore it. Human well-being is however clearly affected by the extent to which such a law is understood, described, and taken into account in the adjustments human beings make. When humans fly neither human nature nor the law of gravity cease to operate, but conscious human adjustments have been made to accommodate them. When an infant looses a toy because it falls from its grasp he or she begins the learning process – it may take a Newton and then an Einstein to describe the law more fully and inspire more refined adjustments of human behaviour, but every baby child learns to acknowledge and work in harmony with the same law.

The singular term ‘natural law’ indicates a type or class of law and does not preclude the existence of the many laws that may fall under that same type or class e.g. statute law, Roman law, English law etc. As far as human comprehension is concerned there does however seem to be a difference between the singular natural law as ‘type’ and particular manifestations of natural laws. Which comes first? Do we first observe phenomena and then identify a commonality that indicates ‘type’ or, aware of the ‘type’, do we then recognise conforming examples. Here George comes to our aid when, in The Science of Political Economy, he indicates that both the ‘inductive’ and the ‘deductive’ modes of human reason are valid and necessary. The inductive or a posteriori method – based on accurate observation and “reasoning from particulars to generals in an ascending line, until we come at last to one of those invariable uniformities that we call laws of nature”, he says, comes first. He continues, having “reached what we feel sure is a law of nature, and as such true in all times and places then an easier and more powerful method of ascertaining the truth is open to us – the method of reasoning in the descending line from generals to particulars. This is the method we call the deductive, or a priori method. For knowing what is the general law, the invariable sequence that we call a law of nature, we have only to discover that a particular comes under it to know what is true in the case of that particular”. George provides further clarification when he says “So far as our reason is concerned, induction must give the facts on which we may proceed to deduction. Deduction can safely be based only on what has been supplied to the reason by induction; and where the validity of this first step is called to question, must apply to induction for proof. Both methods are proper to the careful investigation that we speak of as scientific: induction in its preliminary stages, when it is groping for the law of nature; deduction when it has discovered that law, and is able to proceed by shortcut from the general to the particular, without any further need for the more laborious and, so to speak, uphill method of induction, except to verify its conclusions”. We might further note George’s recognition and use of a third ‘method of investigation’, which has been found to be effective in the discovery of truth in the physical sciences, i.e. where a ‘tentative deduction’ or hypothesis may be employed.

The quotations cited above show how Henry George saw the importance of natural law in connection with political economy and human behaviour and that it does not only operate in the material world. He goes on to show how it operates through the subtle worlds in which man wills, thinks, and desires and which are critical to the social aspects of human nature and the production and distribution of wealth throughout society.
 
Since you have no clue as to what Natural Law is one can then excuse your obvious ignorance.

https://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/the-science-of-economics/land-tenure.html.

That's funny, because, the Founders were influenced by the writings of Locke and Hooker. Since the American Republic was established in the 18th Century, it may surprise you to know that they were not at all influenced by 19th Century economists like George and Marx. Georgism is obviously incompatible with any definition of the term "property," you fucking idiot.
 
Hello 10DayUserName,



You have not shown that a worker managed co-op is any less capable of staying current with the market than an elite management company is. Many businesses managed by dedicated executives make poor decisions which ruin the company. Actually most small business start-ups fail within a few years.

I also did not say that they could not keep current. Why is it so unfathomable to you to grasp that with 26K business bankruptcies a year, the employees of those 26K businesses would be completely wiped out if their entire life were invested in those companies. Sears and JCP were awesome and now they can barely stay afloat. When was the last time you bought Kodak film? 401K and Ira's spread risk. You want to concentrate risk in the hands of workers with a single holding It is a bad idea for workers.
 
Back
Top