• MattsAlt [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    They could go to any bank and leverage that asset for a loan for more than everyone who posts on this platform will make in their lifetimes no problem. That is a nonsense talking point

    • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s your point? So because they can leverage their ownership of their own company we need to take away that ownership?

        • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think the stock market should be determining if we take away companies from their owners, no matter how much it’s worth. Why does having more wealth than a certain size city matter? Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

          • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Especially if your company has more employees and customers than even a large city?

            Why do those employees get the bare minimum? Why are the working majority excluded from ownership and decision-making in the companies they run?

            • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else. Many companies even have employee stock purchase programs. What’s the problem ?

              • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. those shares don’t give you voting rights

                2. those shares amount to a tiny fraction of the total value of the company

                3. without the employees there would be no company

                you try to square those three facts

                • Chriskmee@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago
                  1. So all those times I’ve gotten mail about using my shares to vote, what was that about exactly?

                  2. Of course they do, I don’t expect a given employee who isn’t the owner or high level exec to have a larger fraction of ownership.

                  3. So what? What’s your point?

                    1. Mostly it was about fooling you into thinking that, as a worker, you have even an iota of power within that company.

                    2. You: “The owners deserve all the value that results from owning the company and not the workers because the owners own the company, duh.” Reread what you said and note the ridiculous circular logic.

                    3. The company would continue to function perfectly fine without the owner(s), yet would immediately cease to function or even exist without the workers. The only role the owner plays in the company (that the workers operate), is to siphon the value away from the workers who made it and unto themselves.