Bit of a double-edged sword, that. Worker-owned businesses are great, but if you instead make workers minority shareholders, you get... the modern retirement system, and inflated asset prices that benefit the ultra-wealthy far more than common investors.
replyThis is the position I am in, I work at an ESOP company and it’s been quite lucrative to be an employee owner.
replyThe US has historically been quite opposed to the workers becoming shareholders.
replyOnly if you call it socialism or communism. Otherwise Americans like co-op businesses and employee shares.
replydeleted
replyExcept for all the companies that issue shares and options as part of employee compensation.
replythis is mostly in tech. starbucks barista is not going to get any stocks
replyStarbucks sells its stock to its baristas at a 5% discount every 90 days through payroll deductions.
replyhttps://www.starbucksbenefits.com/en-us/home/stock-savings/s...
The barista can buy $SBUX every payday. The inverse of sell on vest.
replyMore accurate to say that the US has been opposed to workers controlling the firms they work for. But the capitalists dangling just enough of a morsel to get the workers to dance 80 hours a week, but without the ability to actually control anything, and without majorly diluting? Chef's kiss.
replyNone of those gives voting shares to employees.
replyEvery share is a voting share. There are a small number of weird cases (e.g. Meta super-voting shares limited to Zuck), but your statement is broadly false.
replyEven if true, why would that matter? This is about distribution of wealth, not additional responsibilities.
reply