• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

    • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

      Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

      • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

        • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. those shares don’t give you voting rights

          2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

          3. without the employees there would be no company

          you try to square those three facts

          • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

            2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

            3. So what? What’s your point?

              1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

              2. You: “The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh.” Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

              3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.

              • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren’t slaves.

                2. The company wouldn’t exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

                Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn’t see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

                A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other’s content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

                • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The company wouldn’t exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

                  The kingdom wouldn’t exist without monarchs, someone created it, someone started it, someone rules it. The monarchs are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the kingdom.

                  Americans are so pro-democracy, but they’ll bust out the most self-defeating, thoughtless, begging-the-question-ass logic to argue against having democracy in the workplace. Sad.

        • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else.

          And vote with what money? Income inequality is arguably as worse as it has ever been. More and more workers are forced to live on wages that can’t even cover their basic needs, let alone buying power, while the capitalist/owning class is hoarding unbelievable wealth.

          How can workers vote with their money to overturn a system designed by wealthy employers to make themselves as wealthy as possible (a system that involves keeping employee wages as low as possible, btw)? That’s the fucking problem, lmao.

          Consider this: Wealth inequality in America today is worse than it was in ancient Egypt. Your “solution” is like asking asking what’s the problem with the slaves of ancient Egypt not buying their way into power.