[–] hypfer 1 day ago
[–] IAmBroom 1 day ago
Frankly, I can't think of a fairer way for a company to be guided. If we choose, we can vote to hire (shudder) Elon Musk to run our company - or someone actually competent and trustworthy, from outside the employee pool.
By our charter, no one may own more than 1% of our total stock. Our collective decisions - effectively democratic representation, like the US - help decide our success. Demogoguery is almost impossible (unlike the US). Every worker is vested to some degree in our success, thanks to stock gift policies (and of course we can choose to buy more stock than that low level).
[–] hypfer 1 day ago
But, to put my previous point more bluntly, if you do this, you cannot hire idiots, because they otherwise start ruining everything.
Someone needs to hire idiots though, which is why this concept cannot work for all.
The alternative to that is idiot removal, however, that has proven to be a rather complex ethics problem where we've collectively rightfully decided that it is so radioactive, we will no longer entertain such thoughts.
My point is that with such a wealth cap, we will get some co-ops, but we also will have to get something else. And I have not yet found an idea what that could be
Because while some can be transferred into something that is partially worker-owned, not all workers are suited to be given that sort of leverage.
So that might be worth pondering to come up with a solution that makes stuff not collapse. Because the reality of human resources is that the quality is underwhelming.