Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by martin-t 85 days ago
BTW the company is part of the product. If certain work needs to be done, even if it's low-skill work, it contributes to the function of that company and should give fractional ownership according to amount worked and some coefficient accounting for relative skill.
1 comments
auggierose 85 days ago
Who decides who gets hired and fired at that company? How is the coefficient determined? Are we talking about amount of work, or how much your work has contributed to the bottom line of the company?

I don't see that changing anything. As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation, the rest pretty much follows.

link
martin-t 85 days ago
> How is the coefficient determined?

Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage.

> As long as there is private property, and you can sell your work for compensation

And that's why I think work should automatically give ownership by law - and therefore decision making power. See, slavery used to be legal too but then enough people decided it's too exploitative, picked up rifles and changed it. Employment is similar, instead of owning a full person, rich people own the entire economic output for 8 hours a day and instead of flogging, they fire workers they don't want. It's less bad but the same principle with more indirection.

link
auggierose 84 days ago
> Negotiations, just like salary today, except all sides negotiate with the same leverage.

As the cleaner you don't have the same leverage as the CEO. There would be no change in leverage at all. That's what you don't seem to understand.

As the cleaner, the only leverage would be that you don't need a job. And if you have that kind of leverage, why would you clean at all?

I am all ears for a new system that could actually work, but I don't think it will come from you. You don't seem to be willing to actually think through things.

link
martin-t 84 days ago
Hierarchical top-down power structures are only useful when you need to make decisions fast. Pretty much all other times, you can have a vote. As such, I don't see why an individual ("CEO") should have the power to fire workers (or why he should even exist outside emergencies and only have powers needed to avert those emergencies).

Generally, on a team, people know who does good work and who works poorly and drags others or the whole team down. Given that, I can see hiring/firing decisions being made at the team level. If a whole team is seen as underperforming/redundant within the organization as a whole, then the team should be given the choice of either making itself leaner or severing cooperation with the rest of the company. This is still hierarchical but bottom up.

Regarding your last sentence and your general attitude, I think I'll sever our communication here.

link