• MattsAlt [comrade/them]
    ·
    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
      ·
      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?

      • fox [comrade/them]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, if you can control more wealth than a mid size city earns in ten lifetimes, you should not be allowed to do that

          • very_poggers_gay [they/them]
            ·
            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
              ·
              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 ?

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why don't the underpaid employees simply buy enough stock to sway company policy blob-no-thoughts

              • silent_water [she/her]
                ·
                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
                  ·
                  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?

                  • DictatrshipOfTheseus [comrade/them, any]
                    ·
                    1 year ago
                    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.

              • very_poggers_gay [they/them]
                ·
                1 year ago

                Employees are allowed to buy company stock and vote using it just like anyone else.

                And vote with what money? Income inequality is arguably as worse as it has ever been. More and more workers are forced to live on wages that can't even cover their basic needs, let alone buying power, while the capitalist/owning class is hoarding unbelievable wealth.

                How can workers vote with their money to overturn a system designed by wealthy employers to make themselves as wealthy as possible (a system that involves keeping employee wages as low as possible, btw)? That's the fucking problem, lmao.

                Consider this: Wealth inequality in America today is worse than it was in ancient Egypt. Your "solution" is like asking asking what's the problem with the slaves of ancient Egypt not buying their way into power.

      • keepcarrot [she/her]
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would you expect a different opinion from a bunch of communists?

        • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]
          ·
          1 year ago

          i'd expect a debate between taking away ownership from them, and taking away ownership from their estate.