Owners are bought out. For a public company that just means buying back shares.
A company whose employees care very much about share price sounds good to me. It is not much different from companies who let employees “take” options.
That could be financially mismanaged too.
There would need to be a rational structure.
But in practice, what does it mean? Do you want to make illegal a shareholder selling when they want to? They have to sell at whatever the price is when the company needs their shares?
It would be straight forward to require companies over a certain size to issue and distribute some number of shares based on current pay to employees. Existing shareholders will have their stake diluted but are welcome to buy more shares on the market while employees are welcome to sell or hold. If the investors are actually good at allocating capital, they should have plenty of profits from previous investments to maintain their % ownership despite the share inflation. If they aren't, then they should find a different job.
Under this scheme, Bezos would still have become a billionaire, and we know this because Amazon and tech companies already do this exact thing by offering stock options!
And the neat thing is, when a company does a stock-buyback, this is literally the same giving a dividend of the profits to employees.
I know you said "literally", so all bets are off in how you'll parse a reply, but yes, I do know about share dilution. You're describing practically the same thing. You want people to risk all their capital, and if the business does well you auto-dilute them. That's fine if it's what they signed up for, but it will have a chilling effect on investment.
> Under this scheme, Bezos would still have become a billionaire, and we know this because Amazon and tech companies already do this exact thing by offering stock options!
Again, the "literally" made it clear that this wasn't going to be great, but you're committing the apex fallacy. If you only consider the highest of high performing companies in how your instincts guide you, you're going to commit some very obvious errors.
We can lower interest rates for CapEx business loans to encourage investment. Do we really believe that if Bezos could have only become a single-digits billionaire that that wouldn't have been enough motivation?
> Again, the "literally" made it clear that this wasn't going to be great, but you're committing the apex fallacy. If you only consider the highest of high performing companies in how your instincts guide you, you're going to commit some very obvious errors.
Are we to believe that if Amazon hadn't formed, the hole in market would remain unfilled? I find this very unlikely. Someone was going to be Bezos. And we don't have to begin diluting their share in the first year of the company. And lets be real here, they're going to be paid the highest salaries at the top. They can buy shares that their employees sell on the market like everyone else. I mean, if you're a CEO of a company, you should want to buy shares right? Because you believe in your leadership? So they can pay themselves a large salary and reinvest as much of it as they want.