[rhelz]

I'd rather just have additional salary, which I could invest/use however I wanted.

What's more, companies and the 1% also want us to have additional salary, they just don't realize it yet :-) This business of 99% going to 1% is creating serious economic distortions, and when those resolve themselves 100% of us are going to wish we hadn't created those distortions in the first place.

[pylua]

The additional salary would just be diluted too? Proper Ownership in the company would be better.

[bruce511]

By Ownership do you mean;

1) shares that earn dividends from profits?

2) responsibilities such as signing personal surities with suppliers, landlords, banks?

3) being paid last - with whatever is left over?

4) sleepless nights from wondering if enough money will come in to make payroll this month?

5) endless meetings with customers, suppliers, employees, to make sure that everyone is happy all the time?

6) being discriminated against by banks when applying for a home-loan and describing yourself as self-employed.

7) feeling responsible for the livelihood of all your employees. Who would all go to zero income immediately on the day your business fails?

8) signing the financials being supplied to the tax man, with associate penalties for inaccuracies?

Some combination of the above?

I say this only because I have a business. One where multiple people have stepped into and out of ownership from time to time. Most, frankly, just want the ability to profit-share (which we cater for) only some want the other responsibilities and obligations that come with ownership.

[pylua]

This is a great post, thank you for posting it. Starting a business truly is great endeavor.

I mean #1. I am mostly talking about companies that pay such low wages that the government needs to subsidize with food stamps and other benefits. Or the fact that the job does not pay enough for rent. I don’t believe the monetary difference between the Walton’s and the cashier is ethical.

On the flip side I have seen employees give their life, blood, sweat and tears to a company that made the owners very wealthy. They were promptly laid off upon sale and did not benefit proportionally (or at all). This was a fast food franchise.

I guess everyone is being squeezed now.

I wish you all the best luck with your business.

[bruce511]

Firstly, I'm against wages that don't pay enough for people to live. Then again, I work in IT where we can charge enough to pay high wages.

Profit share is a complex topic because it's the upside of an equation. Not surprisingly most people want to be part of the upside to any equation. Unfortunately with every upside comes a downside.

So your concept of ownership is difficult because the upside is shared by many, but the downside is shared by a few.

Naturally you see, and remember, the upside of "Betty sold her business and made millions". You don't see, and don't remember the 19 Paul's who tried, failed, and lost for each successful Betty. Those downsides become invisible.

You pity the worker who sweats blood and tears, yet shares in none of the sale. And I agree that is a poor outcome. But that's balanced against a stable salary, and a lack of risk.

I guess what I'm saying is that you should be careful of seeing just one story - life tends to be a lot more nuanced and includes a lot more metrics than just financial outcomes. In the bigger picture you might find more risk, more work, more responsibilities.

Which is not to suggest at all that life is fair, or that there aren't bad employers (or bad employees.) It's easy to cherry-pick lots of examples on any part of the life continuum.

However, if all you want is a share of upside, when it exists, then there is an avenue open. And it doesn't even require your employment there. You can purchase these "shares" from any stock exchange, and you gave any number of successful businesses to choose from. So rather than focus on squeezing the place you eork, squeeze the places you don't.

[pylua]

These are deep insights that I appreciate.

I do feel like workers do take on risk, however. People invest their time in a company and can be arbitrarily let go. Years of domain knowledge they have invested that may not be transferable. The people laid off from the fast food franchise I mentioned are having a tough time finding new, relevant employment.

What do you think about companies like Publix and their stock buy in program ? Do you think that is feasible ?

[bruce511]

Employees don't invest their time, they sell it. It's a short-term transaction, I work, I get paid.

Owners invest their time, often get short-paid, late paid, or not paid at all. It's an investment because they are foregoing short-term returns in the hope that there's a long-term pot at the end.

Of course employees are exposed to some risk. Things outside their control, sometimes outside the owners control, happen and you lose your job. Short of working for govt there's no "can't get fired" job.

Sure companies can sell stock to employees. Personally I wouldn't recommend stock where you work (if the company goes under you lose your job and your savings at the same time ala Enron).

Companies can also give stock to employees. If it's not tradeable, then I'm not sure it's worth much. If it is tradeable, I'd sell it (see above.)

It might make employees -feel- different (which is why employers do it) and good feelings are very good for all concerned.