Devouring

OK, at least we agree we can fire people. That answers my question. The circumstances aren't important. This idea that people can't be fired is just ridiculous.

Do you think communities will be happy seeing their friends/family being fired, and not understanding why? This actually reminds me of the movie Casino (1995), where Robert De Niro fires that Texan guy for incompetence, and then hell breaks loose due to relatives not understanding how that works. This is human nature. People will always prefer to keep an incompetent relative vs firing them for a good reason, no matter what.

I haven't said that people have to be fired to maintain competitive growth. I said that assuming a normal/average growth (and let's even make it simpler for you and ignore growth), and assuming a breakthrough requires many new people to hired to work with a new technology, then the people who are there and who aren't interested in learning the new way of doing things, will just become a burden to the company. Let's do the math:

• More people are hired
• Same output is maintained

Let's do the 5th grade math: Same output / More people = less earner per person every time this happens

Meaning: If this trend continuous due to multiple breakthroughs (which isn't crazy, we have seen tons of those in the last 25 years in different sectors), then this company is destined to become bankrupt, especially because people will continuously keep earning less with no lower-bound to that other zero, to the point where it's not enough to make a living.

Nothing you said answers this dilemma. You keep talking about general things and avoid this (very realistic) scenario that keeps happening. How will such a company survive?

Nice try evading the question. Try again.

Read the post. Read my question. Tell me what's wrong in my scenario and how it'll work in your "well-educated" mind.

If you understand it, you can explain it to a 5-year old.

Let's see what your next excuse is gonna be.

Either answer my questions, or go away. This conversation is over.

You haven't presented a valid argument. 2+2 is simple, but it works. When someone says the 2+2=10^50, and money falls from the sky, and everyone being lazy leads to growth, I'll ask them to justify.

Take a step back and evaluate your ego.

Sorry but you're evading my questions.

That's OK. I'm not looking to "win" here. Just think about what I said, and next time you have this discussion, have good answers. Maybe you'll change your mind one day and understand why the world we live in is the way we live in. Not that things can't be improve or that we're drowning in corruption. But that's another topic for another day. Have a good one.

Like I said, its like workers hold all the voting shares in the company, so these issues would resolved the same way that they are resolve in corporations owned by shareholders.

You're ignoring a key point I'm trying to make: The workers have a conflict of interest, unlike shareholders. The workers want to minimize their work and maximize their gain, which is mutually exclusive in one company. While shareholders in the current system just want to maximize their gain (regardless of whether that's good or bad). So why would the worker strive to learn new things instead of keeping the status quo? Most people don't see the big picture and don't want to read a book to learn a new thing. How many people around you come from work and spend their evenings reading new things to stay up in their job? This is one problem.

Like I said before to another guy, if you keep dividing the extra without firing anyone, given a limited growth, eventually there won't be enough money to go around. Everyone will go bankrupt. How do you solve that problem too?

"Better" is in your opinion. I need answers based on concerns and problems that happens in the real world. A fast-paced world.

Assuming the revenue of the company doesn't have massive growth (which is the normal situation unless a breakthrough happened), we need to hire more people who have the skills needed to keep up with the market. So, assuming we want to keep everyone (including useless people who'd rather have beer instead of reading a book to learn the new stuff), the income of everyone will just go down over time. Eventually, with no one getting fire there won't be enough money to go around to feed them. What am I missing here?

My original questions aren't answered. You're just talking about the temporary procedure, not the long term plan, as in the questions I asked.

This is exactly the problem with such discussion. We end up with anecdotes. Yeah, I gotta see that company's financial statements, their business model, and their growth, to decide whether this is a good thing. In fact, the idea that it makes "enough money" doesn't sound good good. This kind of "stability" (I'll call it) is either due to a niche field or a dying company that sooner or later will become irrelevant. It's not how the real world works.

And even with this model you proposed, someone eventually can put their foot down. Those employees can sell their shares if they want, and we're all the way back to the (evil) capitalist model you don't like.

You said a bunch of nice things, but you ignored the core of the problem. If workers hold all voting shares, what happens when they're split on an issue? Who can tell them to STFU for the better of the company?

Another similar question: What if there's an issue that will lead to half of them getting fired? Like, say, a technological advancement? So if work can be optimized by 200% by adding computers, but then 50% of the people are useless then. Wouldn't the workers vote to stay employed/paid instead of saving the company that can be destroyed in a competitive market where better, faster companies can emerge if this company doesn't adopt the newer tech? Who will make that decision?

I'm not sure I understand... are you saying that your plans don't work on giant corporations, so maybe you shouldn't propose things like OP did?

Well, according to the post, you want to seize the means of production and eat the rich. Sounds delicious! I would love to know whether you're just a bunch of guys having wet dreams or whether there's a framework where this can really work. Tell me how you're gonna seize Amazon and keep it running like it does now.