> With that, how can we distribute ownership of a company to the many, instead of the few? How can we cement worker power and ownership for decades to come?
Having read some of the comments here; I can guess a lot of the objections and honestly the answer to most of them is going to be "Yes, that's the point". It's a totally different model. It's not for everyone and that's fine.
But they come with many advantages (disadvantages too, to be honest, but doesn't everything?). Do google it and spend some time reading up on it if your interested in this question.
> "Yes, that's the point". It's a totally different model. It's not for everyone and that's fine.
"that's the point", what's the point? I don't see why anyone starting their own business that is not firmly entrenched in whatever ideology the author has would ever consider implementing this.
Not only is it damaging to the business (what venture capitalist would ever invest in a business operating under such a model?), it's also directly damaging to the founder who after 4 or so years wont even be in control of the company they've dedicated so much to found.
When a founder decides to abandon their office job what they really desire is to work at a business that is run by a committee of employees and power in that committee isn't determined by merit and skill but by TENURE. /s
> "that is not firmly entrenched in whatever ideology the author has"
But then you strongly talk about a startup, looking for V.C. funding with strong founder ethos. That's also an ideology. And if you want to do that, go ahead - this clearly isn't for you.
But a lot of people don't want to do that. And that's why workers co-ops were started in 1844 and have been going strong since - granted, a small fraction of the market - but a successful small fraction that has survived and is clearly not going away.
I'd just suggest people read up on them before dismissing this. And sure, I get that the majority of HN readers probably are going to decide this is not for them. But other people do like them, and have made a success of them, so if your interested at all in the original question, do check them out.
> But then you strongly talk about a startup, looking for V.C. funding with strong founder ethos. That's also an ideology.
Wanting to raise money is an ideology? It's better to describe it as a practical way of expanding a business.
> But a lot of people don't want to do that. And that's why workers co-ops were started in 1844 and have been going strong since
I just looked it up and there are an estimated 400 coops in the US with around 7000 employees total. This does not qualify as a lot. Almost nobody with the desire to create and run a business wants to run a business this way.
Also you missed the most important criticism, which is why is tenure of all things being used to decide who gets how much equity?
it most certainly is. with all the startups i was involved in the decision whether to raise money from VC or to bootstrap ourselves in other ways always came down to the believes of the founders. practical considerations hardly ever mattered.
Anyone interested in this should check out an existing model that's been going for decades already: a workers co-op. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative
Having read some of the comments here; I can guess a lot of the objections and honestly the answer to most of them is going to be "Yes, that's the point". It's a totally different model. It's not for everyone and that's fine.
But they come with many advantages (disadvantages too, to be honest, but doesn't everything?). Do google it and spend some time reading up on it if your interested in this question.