[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by 2ffu

What if they don't want to carry the risk of having their money tied up in epuity in the company that could go out of business.

Right of first refusal

ESOP's/employee owned companies aren't some hypothetical, textbook entity; there are some pretty well-known business that utilize this as a business association.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

It would be primarily to keep more company profits in the company, with the workers. I would like the employment aspect of companies to be looked at as a function rather than an expense.

Why would I want to start a company then?

maybe answer through PM, to not derail the conversation.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Why would I want to start a company then?

Well as an employee you would have a stake. When you start it, you probably would have a large stake.

[custar]

Originally Posted by 2ffu

So how would all of these workers decide what direction to take the company that they would now own under your Workers Party dictatorship?

Any number of ways. They could high an executive to serve under a board comprised of owner-elected board members, they could have a board of trust run the day-to-day operations, they could exercise more direct control if the business was small enough, etc. Whatever method was used, it would by definition not be a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

It would be primarily to keep more company profits in the company, with the workers.

Fair enough. I can't see any legitimate reason anyone can be against that.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

I would like the employment aspect of companies to be looked at as a function rather than an expense.

Or both. Keeping good employees for considerable periods helps businesses keep down training and other costs and retains talent. People being people, I expect there would be times the owners would still look to maximize profits, even at the expense of fellow employees at times. Overall, however, I would actually like to see this business model more.

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

Or both. Keeping good employees for considerable periods helps businesses keep down training and other costs and retains talent. People being people, I expect there would be times the owners would still look to maximize profits, even at the expense of fellow employees at times. Overall, however, I would actually like to see this business model more.

Well what I meant was that companies need to be looked at engines of employment as much as anything else. Basically I want to see the almost pathological view of employees that is prevalent in modern business to be eliminated. Workers are also customers, and that very important economic dynamic does not get anywhere near the recognition it should.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Well what I meant was that companies need to be looked at engines of employment as much as anything else.

I understood, and that can be a legitimate objective of a business. I did a poor job of articulating that there will be a number of employee-owners who will look at ways to improve the bottom line rather than focus on employee-friendly policies, and if they gain control, the result will look a lot like some of the businesses that are investor-owned.

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

I understood, and that can be a legitimate objective of a business. I did a poor job of articulating that there will be a number of employee-owners who will look at ways to improve the bottom line rather than focus on employee-friendly policies, and if they gain control, the result will look a lot like some of the businesses that are investor-owned.

Well at least in that event they will be there to feel the consequences of their actions. Overall I would think any such actions would be tempered, and there would be no outright sociopathic decisions as are common with absentee owners.

[Mike133]

When Santa Claus runs for president only fools vote for the guy who would make you work for your presents...

[Spock]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Why do we allow Democrats to RUN on a platform where they are taking our money and giving it to others when WE worked for that money?...

Even kids can see through that logic, and yet, people still vote for those money grubbing liberals who want to take YOUR money and give it to their friends.

Do you mean, for example, massive spending on weapons and a military that is far larger than we need, or Medicare, both of which Republicans refuse to touch?

[chodeyg]

Originally Posted by Mike133

When Santa Claus runs for president only fools vote for the guy who would make you work for your presents...

You've got it all figured out. Conservatives are the only educated voters. The rest of them just want stuff.

[2pipes]

Just finished college for the second time. I worked hard, my family sacrificed, and earned my degree. I want to keep my rewards not have them taken by anyone. I believe it is my Christian duty to help others, but the government is NOT my charity of choice.

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Just finished college for the second time. I worked hard, my family sacrificed, and earned my degree. I want to keep my rewards not have them taken by anyone. I believe it is my Christian duty to help others, but the government is NOT my charity of choice.

How much of your education was funded by taxpayers? (where did you go to school so I can look up how much public money they accept)

[2pipes]

Originally Posted by Umami

How much of your education was funded by taxpayers? (where did you go to school so I can look up how much public money they accept)

Military service so the long and short of your answer is none. I paid into the GI bill as did others. Most don't use it so the benefit for those who do is substantially more than I put in. If your point was to suggest that those who take government assistance should in some way repay that assistance, I do agree. I feel that government grants, etc should be repaid even with interest, but not a lifetime of increased taxation because you are in a higher tax bracket.

As for where I went to school, I will save you the trouble. I went to Texas Southern University, and I can assure you they take government assistance as they are a public university. Could be wrong but don't all public universities get money from the government? (not talking down I really don't know).

[licence2kill]

So all of your education was tax payer funded.

Good to know.

[2pipes]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

So all of your education was tax payer funded.

Good to know.

I guess I should stick to the manufacturer and BST parts of PBnation. Every time I step outside those areas I get trolled. Seems like it's always from someone who has a beef with the military.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Just finished college for the second time. I worked hard, my family sacrificed, and earned my degree. I want to keep my rewards not have them taken by anyone. I believe it is my Christian duty to help others, but the government is NOT my charity of choice.

Originally Posted by 2pipes

Military service so the long and short of your answer is none. I paid into the GI bill as did others. Most don't use it so the benefit for those who do is substantially more than I put in. If your point was to suggest that those who take government assistance should in some way repay that assistance, I do agree. I feel that government grants, etc should be repaid even with interest, but not a lifetime of increased taxation because you are in a higher tax bracket.

As for where I went to school, I will save you the trouble. I went to Texas Southern University, and I can assure you they take government assistance as they are a public university. Could be wrong but don't all public universities get money from the government? (not talking down I really don't know).

Hypocracy is hypocritical.