I think I have a good idea on how businesses should pay their employees

I think I have a good idea on how businesses should pay their employees.

I think instead of having some communist system where everyone makes the same, or a capitalist system where the rich control everything and fuck everyone over constantly we should do this.

When you get hired somewhere they have to give you a "share" of company profits. for example. at a small company with 50 employees you might get a share worth 1% of earnings. so basically you would get 1% of all revenue. if you were the CEO perhaps you get 5%. that sort of thing. if it were some mega corporation and you were a cashier you might only get a 0.0001% share. and the CEO might get a 1% share.

you see how this works? if the company does really really well you will automatically do very very well and you are incentivized to work harder and be more productive. your share is locked in and they cant take it away from you unless you are fired for a good reason. if you got promoted you could negotiate for more of a share etc.

it makes it so the top brass cant keep everything for themselves and keep the actual people doing their work like field niggers out in the sun all day.

why is this a bad idea?

pic related. its a graph showing that CEO's used to make a lot more than their average employee. today they make way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way more than ten assloads multiplied by five fucktons more than the average worker makes. its clearly fucked up.

it's not worse than the current system but i'd rather just get rid of corporate personhood which is a state creation that introduces limited liability

i'd rather just let the free market decide, corporations are an anti-free market concept, at least how they are regulated today

Some companies actually do this. I think it gives incentive to put more effort in... basically everyone gets their salary then as a yearly bonus “X”% of the companies profit is split evenly among everyone. At certain dollar milestones the percentage increases

Your at a good place. Regulations for ratio pay where the top earner can only have 50:1 of that of the lowest earner is a start,

but it's true profit sharing is a meaningful way to help your business, that literally no one will EVER do.

what do you mean?

my biggest concern has been the growing wage gap between the 1% and the rest of the country.

I do not begrudge people earning a lot of money I jsut think the system has gotten way out of whack recently and we are spiraling toward some sort of class revolution if shit keeps going this way.

you are saying less regulation would fix this?

you know some companies that actually do this? know their names?


I thought about that too. It wouldn't be a "maximum" wage, i think that's a bad idea. it would be a ratio like you said.

>> the highest paid employee at a company cannot make more than 50x what the lowest paid full time employee at that company makes.

that sounds like a great start as well.

gives the upper brass incentive to raise their employees wages so that they can increase their own.

socialism.

sage

Hmm. I hear what you are saying but it isn't quite the same. its more like capitalism with limits.

no limited liability -->no ability to diversify risk
--->no big bets -->no big wins
>enjoy

We had a system. It was called Unions.

>what do you mean?
im saying end the legal concept of corporations

The profit share bit yes.
I know Norboard ($OSB) does in the form of a check (I have a friend at a local plant. Said he’d be getting ~49k from it this year) many other companies do by giving employees stocks if they are publicly traded

high quality employees negotiate a share of profits with the investors all the time, e.g. investment banking, professional sports, software engineers
completely in line with capitalism
opposite of socialism

In the financial crisis 2008 my parents company made a profit of only 30.000 € while having around 7 employees. 2-3 of them were still paying for their houses. If they had been payed with a share of the companys profit instead of their regular income, all these houses would belong to someone else now.

>I think I have a good idea on how businesses should pay their employees.
>I think instead of having some communist system where everyone makes the same, or a capitalist system where the rich control everything and fuck everyone over constantly we should do this.
>When you get hired somewhere they have to give you a "share" of company profits. for example. at a small company with 50 employees you might get a share worth 1% of earnings. so basically you would get 1% of all revenue. if you were the CEO perhaps you get 5%. that sort of thing. if it were some mega corporation and you were a cashier you might only get a 0.0001% share. and the CEO might get a 1% share.
>you see how this works? if the company does really really well you will automatically do very very well and you are incentivized to work harder and be more productive. your share is locked in and they cant take it away from you unless you are fired for a good reason. if you got promoted you could negotiate for more of a share etc.
>it makes it so the top brass cant keep everything for themselves and keep the actual people doing their work like field niggers out in the sun all day.
>why is this a bad idea?
>pic related. its a graph showing that CEO's used to make a lot more than their average employee. today they make way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way more than ten assloads multiplied by five fucktons more than the average worker makes. its clearly fucked up.


It's called profit sharing, been around for ages.

You could also purchased shares in said company through an employee stick plan.

Or a raise works too.

Stay in school dude.

exactly, corporate personhood is a way for rich people to limit their own liability and push the risk onto smaller players than themselves, it's an infringement on the free market

I agree. Unions used to be great things. but then they sort of turned into coporations of their own hell bent on making profits for the top union brass.

a true union should be of, for, and consisting of the workers at said company. basically i could do away with most of what unions do if we could just all have collective bargaining powers.

well what do you define as a corporation vs... a what? regular business? isnt a corporation just a big business? what are you advocating exactly? im confused.

yes well i wouldn't necessarily say they are high quality employees, just very highly paid employees with lawyers probably banging that out for them. the vast majority of people have no access to share profits or have even heard of the concept.

would you per chance like to work my land for 30 years? i will give you 80 acres and a mule afterward?

good point.

I am not talking about sheer profit. I am talking about revenue. their revenue that year was undoubtedly many many times larger than their "profit" that year. since revenue includes what they paid their employees they would actually have made the same amount pretty much. plus whatever their share of 30K was.

Believe it or not Walmart pays their managers in stock as well as cash.
The main problem with your idea is that the employees are taking all of the reward but none of the risk. It's not their name, house or childrens lives that are ruined should the company go tits up

ah... i think i see what you mean now.

they take huge risks and know at the end of the day if it works out they get to keep the vast majority of the profits, and if it doesnt work out they can just gut the company and still come out ahead while putting thousands of their employees out of work.

that is what you mean by corporatism?

The idea is you are paid salary + bonus rather than paid just with a raw cut of the profits.
So lets say you get a salary of £20,000 you could get a bonus of £2000 or no bonus at all if the company makes a loss.

This is what Sir Oswald Mosley fought for, democratic industry.
He said that there should be no external shareholders and that all employees should be shareholders who also get a say in how the business is run in shareholder meetings. Hard work helps the business and that gets them bonuses, which encourages more hard work

>well what do you define as a corporation vs... a what? regular business? isnt a corporation just a big business? what are you advocating exactly? im confused.
that people should be legally responsible for their own decisions, profits and losses, and crime. That you can't push your personal responsibility unto a made up abstract concept of a corporation/business

sure it is. I mean if someone making 50K per year loses their job they are a hell of a lot more at risk than the guy making 5 million a year. right? that guy is set for life even after a few years of work.

under the current system see . the risk is on the little guy

>my biggest concern has been the growing wage gap between the 1% and the rest of the country
It possibly can't be because of the influx of illegal mmigrants that have little to no money, which would skew any data by making it seem as if the wage gap is larger than it actually is (many cities have hundreds of thousands of illegals).

>Sir Oswald Mosley

oh dear... i may have to rethink my life. i thought he was a meme

no doubt. but i doubt they are reporting their income either. it isnt that they are scewing the numbers directly. its that the illegals drive down the wages of the American worker.

That person would make 50k a year anyway. But the person who owns the company would take a corresponding cut in wages for every 1% of profit that was funneled to someone else. So he ends up owning all of the liabilities, works 18 hours a day and only earns 50k because muh profit sharing. Is he able to sue his staff if the company folds? Are they all prepared to be registered as directors and have their assets seized by the IRS?

maximim wages

no not really

>A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law

I would also like to add that many of your comments would contradict the free-market, in the sense that you seem to outright dislike certain business structures. The free market would definitely have better variation, corporations included. Your idea as stated in the original post is also indifferent from trying to regulate businesses more.

i think i see where we have confusion here. I am not saying every employee gets the exact same percentage. The CEO might get a 5% share wheras the lowest paid employee only gets a 0.25% share. you negotiate your percentage at the outset.

i do see the problem though. where do more shares come from? that is a problem i havent thought of yet. but i think the overall idea is sound.

He was actually really chill, he gets a bad rep because he went abit retard and called his movement fascist when he could have easily called it anything else. He had really good ideas.
But it is true, he set up the first industrial Aryan blood factory that led to the great German blood rations of 1950.

>The free market would definitely have better variation, corporations included
not as currently imagined. corporations as a legal unit is a government creation

I don't think your idea is completely bad, though it sounds like socialism. My main point is if you are willing to take a percentage of the overall profit of a business, you must be prepared to take a percentage of the overall risk. Accountants would make a fuckload though. Are you an accountant?

Terrible idea. Expect less investments if the owner has their income limited. Even if you consider it a lot.
You can charge a billionaire 75% in taxes and they'd still be better off than most. Just because they would be better off than most, does not signify that intervening on how businesses operate is good. Any person, no matter their socio-economic status is going to react similarly when they have to pay more. If you keep pushing it, you'll eventually reach a tipping point where the wealthy individual is going to contribute less to the economy, similar to the laffer-curve.

I am not overly attached to the free market or any ideas in particular.

My concern is seeing working class people thrown away like trash and left for dead by huge coorporations that are moving increasingly toward outsourcing and automation. things that are supposed to be making our lives easier are making it harder and harder for the average person to make a decent living.

just the other day i was talking to my friend that works for an automobile insurance company. he says within a year or two he will surley be fired because his company is starting this "virtual" estimating stuff where instead of sending him to check your car out and cut you a check they are just going to have you take a picture of your damages with your phone and send it in.

so basically he works at this place for a long time. makes them lots of money and is paid fairly well for it, but at the end is thrown out so that prajeet can take his job oversees for a fraction of the cost and the rest of his earnings can go to the top brass.

seems like a fucked up trade.

i am an engineer. why would accountants make a fuckload?

since you wear the flag i assume you are a national socialist yeah? I have no issue with socialism as long as the state consists of a racially unified people that weeds out the scum and everyone has a sense of right and wrong etc.

I also had this sort of an idea. I will see if I implement it when I start a buisness. Its capitalism though unless the state forces you to do thia.

well it isnt a tax. i think everyone should be taxed the same. a flat percentage of their income. I would do away with all other taxes as well. only income tax. say 25% across the board.

what I want i suppose is a sense of obligation on the CEO's part where he is responsible for making his employees more money while still giving the customers what they want. now it seems they are obsessed with fucking the employee over with zero wage increases (or almost zero) and giving themselves huge bonuses while activly searching for newer and better ways to eliminate their employees alltogether.

>My concern is seeing working class people thrown away like trash and left for dead by huge coorporations that are moving increasingly toward outsourcing and automation. things that are supposed to be making our lives easier are making it harder and harder for the average person to make a decent living.
If only you knew how your economic policies would hurt people in the long run. I believe that having a free-market would be superior to what you are proposing as this would spur more competition, allow easy entrance by new firms into various oligopoly/ monopoly markets, etc. You remind of me of people who think the same way as you, but support rent controls, minimum wage increases, etc. Without realizing how all those policies actually hurt people, even if the intention is to help them out.

I was giving an example. I was relating taxes to your idea via showing how both increase business expenses.

Via regulations*

Co-operatives are a similar business model

well there is certainly more than one way to skin a cat. It just seems to me that we already have a free market don't we?

how would you recreate the market to make it truly free? wouldn't the huge corporations still have massive advantage in this market?

i mean lets say you are super fucking smart but have no capital. how do you go into business and compete without being snuffed out by walmart?

I've been saying for ages that automation will lead to a crisis with mass unemployment that will lead to one of a few outcomes:
A civil war type situation, managers/rich and automated devices will be killed and destroyed by the working class.
Basic income will be needed to support the majority population that is unemployed.
Government will start taxing companies that have automated devices, treating robots as multiple people in terms of the taxable amount.
Governments will require businesses to hire useless workers rather than have them lose their jobs to automation.
The worst outcome will be 'population reduction and control' to fir the new automated world where less workers are needed and mass unemployment is a drain on the economy.

This is more common in LLP's, which while they may work you to death, getting a fat bonus and a 15% raise every year is pretty fucking nice.

>Government will start taxing companies that have automated devices, treating robots as multiple people in terms of the taxable amount.

if things do go that way this would be my preferred outcome. civil war would do no good since the tech to do it all over again would be there. hiring usless workers is, well, useless, and having a giant poplation purge sounds like shit as well (unless we are moving toward an all white world, i am alright with that)

i think a perfect world would be like start trek almost. where shit is so easy to make and jobs are so pointless that the monetary system is just eliminated for the most part and people spend their time simply trying to better themselves and society.

I think the taxing as multiple people and basic income will be the most likely end outcome, basic income after protests and possibly threats from the working class

I am an engineer so i assume i will always have a job. since some fuckers gotta fix the damn robots. but for most people this is going to be a god damn painful transition.

CEOs have more responsibility therefore they should be paid more. Nice try shill.

People in IT, software and UI design are solid, especially people in AI development. Its really the people in working class factory jobs that are fucked and people in replaceable office jobs.