[facepalm]

It sounds like a nice move to give employees shares in one's company. But what is stopping employees from simply buying shares from their salary? Giving them a high enough salary so that they could buy any shares they want seems like a nicer move than promising them shares in one's own company.

Also, people who get angry about this are often beneficiaries themselves - the article mentions the pension funds who own most shares, but who will also later pay most people's pensions.

[JoeAltmaier]

Because a company can print shares; cash hurts the bottom line.

[SFJulie]

Easiest way to do it is called a cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

But VC never fund them, they prefer private owned companies.

Maybe because it is easier to bribe 1 man for 100 grands than 1000 for 10grands

[theandrewbailey]

Paying people more money is more expensive; giving people ownership is less costly. Employee owned shares encourage employees to work better. It also gives them a louder voice in how things are done.

[facepalm]

What if I own a company and don't want my employees to have a voice in how things are done? Why shouldn't that be allowed?

And what if I hire workers to build me a house - should they be entitled to parts of the house after they build it? Or what if they absolute want to put marble into the bathroom, but I don't? Should they be entitled to put marble, because after all they are doing the work?

Meaning what is wrong with making a contract and fulfilling it? You do work x for me, I give you money y in return? Why make things more complicated?

[theandrewbailey]

I'm not arguing against that idea (employees receive a paycheck only, not shares). And you appear to be conflating company influence with product influence (was I not talking about company shares?). Shareholders, employees or otherwise, don't force those marble bathrooms; the product designer or customer does.

[omouse]

Owning shares is not the same as ownership. Profit sharing on the other hand...