Stonks?

I've been racking my brain about how to properly attempt Anderson's project of voice and I was wondering what their thoughts would be on doing it by giving employees stock or shares in the company. I think its important to acknowledge that part of the reason CEO's are sanctioned to exercise such massive control over the functions of the firm including its employees is because we recognize their liberty to do so as a majority shareholder in a company meaning they've invested the most money into the success of the firm (at least from my limited understanding of how stocks and the firm works.) Stock is I think a fixed way to shift power over the company from one entity to another and this can be seen from an example of a hostile takeover which involves buying out the current management of a firm. Then I dont see why giving employees stock, wouldn't accomplish the same goal of shifting or tilting the power dynamic. And though I dont know the specifics of how stocks work, I dont mean to give employees measly percentages or some useless class of stock. The stock given must be so that it gives them partial ownership of the company in a meaningful way that allows them to exercise abilities such as voting on company policies. While I know there are companies that do give their employees stock, it seems to be more so as a reward where I think that due to their employment and labor, employees are entitled to their possession of it (this is un addition to wage.) I think this might do a good job of having some power of holding the management accountable as well as aligning the interests of the firm with the interests of its employees (since they'll benefit from the company growing.) 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even...
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to...
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the...
Read more