Having companies be employee-owned (which is commonly referred to as a worker co-op) is absolutely a political topic -- implementing policies to allow more companies to become worker-owned was part of the UK Labour Party's manifesto in 2017. Just because something is political doesn't make it bad.
free market policies. Proper Co-ops are designed not to exploit workers, local resources or destroy communities in order to create profit therefore have a hard time competing with ruthless profit-oriented companies in most markets. Co-ops create social value and are beneficial to workers and society alike, but they need to be nurtured actively.
On the other hand, less free market - which is what you get when you allow monopolies and oligopolies to dominate it - is harmful to them, just like any other business that's not "big enough".
Right, that works until you need more funding (unless you can raise from employees, but that also has consequences and limits). I'm guessing that Mapbox is angling for an acquisition or more funding at some point.
The other thing it does (giving employees more power) is make it harder for companies to change course. Most people hate change and will fight it as hard as they can, seeing all layoffs as "bad" and "evil".
Germany's auto industry is a great example of a highly unionized industry. Pay is good. But also, it's very hard for Germany to enact anti-oil and gas policies (carbon reduction / pro-environment) because it hurts auto workers. It should also give anyone really pro-union pause to consider why Germany didn't produce Tesla. They had every advantage imaginable including a well-trained workforce, existing manufacturing infrastructure, the deepest capital markets in Europe, and existing distribution relationships. And yet, the Americans beat them to it. Why, you ask? Because workers don't want to retrain or change what they've been doing for 50+ years. There's too much inertia, too much complacency, too much "this is how we've always done things".
> Most people hate change and will fight it as hard as they can, seeing all layoffs as "bad" and "evil".
this does not take into account the other side of the ledger -- the behavior, movement and dispersion of Kapital. Is there a shortage of profit in the last forty years, that requires creative destruction at every turn?
Perhaps the secret ingredient would be something called "stability" that includes accounting for the real system-level costs of luxury resorts, massive sports franchises, excessive personal medication and single-use plastics?
Am I seriously proposing that the German Auto Industry is good the way it is for the next 200 years? no.. is California a model for the world economic growth in the next twenty years? you tell me
Yes staying true to the rhetoric about 'making the world a better place' does preclude certain future states. But that rhetoric can be true, actionable, and not incompatible with profit.
Just saying here's an anecdatum about a money-making business that said the same kinds of things and is doing very well for itself.