50 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 11 Jul \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
I hear you, but here's what comes to mind for me.
That sounds nice but why not just pay them more? Let them decided how to use the resources? Maybe some have family that could use the money spend providing them x for something different.
Companies have done these things before and some do some of them today.
Why not make the employees shareholders? Shareholders are just people that are willing to risk their excess capital to an entrepreneur with the hopes of making a return.
Employees are willing to part with their time and energy on the promise of being compensated according to their agreement with the company ownership.
Enterprise, risk takers, and investors build communities and empower people. These are all amoral things. When you have evil people in these positions, especially in near absolute power (government) this invites cheating and tipping the scales towards the elite.
Buffet is one of these evil elites supporting the evil fiat money system. Honestly, I would be terrified to have Buffet's money and power. I would be terrified to have so many people depending on my management of companies they rely on for their families.
True increased compensation will be part of me draining the treasury down to $1B.
My argument is based upon corporate culture completely undermining their labor and expecting the government/society to pick up their slack. That is why pensions went dead from the corporation because it hurt the bottom line.
Libertarians think the free market solves all but often forget the opportunity cost to competition plus as financial markets became more deregulated (stock buy backs) the free market always tries to drive the cost of labor to zero while the top sit on their spoils and act as if they earned it all and deserve it all.
reply
Not trying to pick a fight. Its just an interesting thought experiment.
Companies have done these things before and some do some of them today.
In frontier lands in the past and even to this day companies provide what you describe. Many complain that a single source controlling so much of what a person needs (income, housing, education, and child care) invites abuse. Maybe not by the person at the top alone.
Basically you have created a monopoly over these services and in some ways have created a private government. After all, many governments provide this same list for those at the bottom of the income scale. Its full of possible problems.
reply