Hacker News Reader

Comment by e_d_e_v | Hacker News Reader

It seems that perhaps you have some idea of what these perverse outcomes look like. D) seems to be "a company reinvests in its employees (training, etc) and E) is someethign like "a Company rewards employees and stakeholders for long-term company success."

What does the perverse scenario look like for you?

View on HN

I legitimately don't have any in mind. I just have zero faith in humanity, and assume loopholes will be exploited to follow the letter of the law, but not the intent. I was wondering if they've thought about that and what his thoughts were about it.

Edit; The only one I can think of, when it comes to rewarding employees is what if a company uses contractors (or gig workers if you use those words), and therefore not defined as employees?

You don't even need to say it like that: you have zero faith in humanity. You should have some faith, we've performed reasonably okay over time. The problem is thus: over a long enough time period, given any individual's inert desire to benefit from something, it will be attempted if not by one individual, then by another. Wanting to define, in law, through enforcement, terms of ethical conduct and its breach is reasonable and necessary herein where capital is involved.

I'd like to see a market for solely worker-owned cooperatives, in which stock dissolves over a fixed time-period, 5 years(restaurant)-500 years(asteroid mining). "Dissolve" being essentially buybacks that occur, bending based on performance. Then again, I'd like to see capital dissolving, normalizing, over 100 years, giving capital the property of entropy, redistributing it all, but very slowly over the span of a bit more than a human lifetime. This capital would be more valuable than any world currency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com