Chriskmee

They'll get as much as they continue to put in.

Since they run the business I assume they will be making a lot more than the rest of the employees, right?

State and worker directed capital funds that vet and invest in new firms.

Do you really think that can work? I think you will have a very hard time getting people to agree to put their money into stuff like this.

We will structure access to capital such that we don't depend on profit-sucking capitalists to grant it to us.

Ah, yeah, let's just restructure the whole system into some untested idea, that's going to go over great with everyone. How would you even start making this change?

Because they didn't make the business. If you started a business would you be happy to give away that ownership to every new employee you hire? If so, that's your choice, have fun.

I'm not seeing how that makes any of it illegitimate. If you make something you own it, right? Why should a business be any different?

I don't suck any dick, I just think the alternative you are suggesting is so much dumber than what we have

So we should just sell items for what they cost? Doesn't matter if you spent all day working, you get nothing because you just sold everything for what it costs? That's a better society?

Businesses first need to pay employees, that's an obvious one, nobody is going to work for free. Then they need to pay for all the raw materials they buy, and the electricity, etc. If they can't make a profit they aren't paying any of those.

It's a huge financial risk to start a business, most require a lot of upfront costs.

Maybe check a dictionary before you talk more nonsense.

So the people who put in the most risk and started the company get nothing more than someone who joined 20 years later? How do you expect companies to get created if the owner constantly loses more and more of their company the bigger it gets? Why risk any of this money in the company when it isn't even his anymore?

2. The workers get paid, they get value out of it, they aren't slaves.

3. The company wouldn't exist without owners, someone created it, someone started it, someone owns it. The owners are also the ones usually making the big decisions, they have a lot of skin in the game when it comes to the future of the company.

Look at a company like Blockbuster. With a better owner they could have changed their position to stay around as a company, but the owner made bad choices. If there was no owner what would have happened? It probably would have failed even quicker because there is nobody making decisions and most employees probably didn't see the wiring on the wall until it was too late.

A good owner would have seen the direction the market was going and changed the company to prepare. Netflix has been fighting this fight for a while now, switching from streaming other's content to making their own content. Without an owner they would have died a long time ago.

How is it not legitimate ownership?

That's how you compete in the world. Imagine for a second if the US didn't bail out the automotive companies, I think Ford would have survived, but that's about it, no more American competition for them. If they also failed, then we might not have any US car companies, how bad would that have been for our society?

Or the banks, could you imagine how screwed we would be if the whole baking system collapsed? Even the small banks were in trouble, it's not a solution to just split them all up.

What do employees get for their efforts? Oh yeah, that's right, they get a salary and maybe even bonuses. What are you suggesting we do the owners? Oh, punish them by removing their company from them? Yeah, they will surely keep the company in the US if that is their reward.