How does an Employee Stock Ownership Plan work? How do partners/employees make money with it? When you hold stock, don’t you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
And how do you hire somebody? Do you sell your shares to the person at no cost or something?
Every year I get shares from my company. The vesting period is typically longer. For me it took 7 years to be fully vested. But I was accumulating every year. When I leave the company, the company will pay out my shares and I can tell them where to put the funds. But the higher base salary I have, the more shares I get.
Also the people retiring or leaving the company, the shares get bought back by the company and redistribute to the employees. At least that’s how it works at the ESOP I work at. Kinda a simplistic view of it.
When someone is hired, they don’t get shares. They are enrolled into the ESOP program. Then after some time, they will eventually start accruing shares on a regular basis.
Sell their stock for money, or stocks owned may pay dividends, or both.
When you hold stock, don’t you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
Yes. But only a small percentage of the employees are retiring and selling their stock at any given time. There are usually limits on how and when employee stock awards can be sold before retirement.
And how do you hire somebody?
The usual way. After hiring, hires receive stock as a part of their compensation.
Do you sell your shares to the person at no cost or something?
It’s just part of their compensation. Longer tenure employees end up with more stock earned over time, and may also receive more stock per pay period to reward loyalty.
Implied question: If employees can sell stock won’t the company eventually be publicly traded?
There lots of ways the rules for holding the stock can be structured to prevent that, while still having real monetary value to retirees.
It’s a bit much for a post here, though. And it varies by country, I think.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but this made me bust out laughing…
When you hold stock, don’t you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
Boy, if that isn’t just a perfect example of the perversion of our economic system. “You can’t make ACTUAL money with it, you can only make money by participating the meta gambling game.”
No, stock entitles you to dividends, which is just a fancy way of saying “a share of the profits”. Like, a company brings in A amount of money (gross income) in a year, spends B of that on payroll and whatnot (expenses), maybe puts away C of that into a savings or spending account, and everything that’s left, D, gets given to the owners. If you have stock in the company, that’s you.
Of course, dividends are generally very small (like, think savings interest) compared to what you can make trading and speculating, so it’s never good enough for the rich.
It’s also rather common for companies to pay no dividends, because they just put all the leftover money into C. Which isn’t even necessarily bad, it’s generally built on the idea that keeping the money in the company will give the company more room for growth, I.E. raising the stock price, with the assumption that that will be worth more than the dividends may have been. But for so many companies, that just never ends. Sooner or later, the growth won’t be sustainable, and many companies just collapse under their own weight, leaving the stock worthless.
No need to be so condescending. I’m very financially literate and I had a similar question - because dividends are so small and rare nowadays that they just didn’t cross my mind.
There is a city in Spain called Mondrago. I first heard about it years ago.
The way it was brought up to me was that the people there are happy. And we should also be happy. But why are they happier on average then others.
My favorite part too is that this is capitalism. Its not communism. It isn’t socialism. You can bring this to the right wing whoevers and argue that this is a better way.
I mean collective employee ownership can’t really be considered capitalism. Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone? It works very differently.
Generally most proponents of worker-coops are considered market socialists or anarchists, depending on their attitudes toward the state.
That said it can exist within capitalism, though it’s not clear whether capitalism will allow this ownership structure to expand significantly.
The capitalists are the workers. They collectively want to increase their profits and grow their company and invest in the markets. This isn’t socialism, anarchy or anything else. It’s capitalist. Socialism, communism are not good systems. Cooperatives sit in a neat place that bridges ideas between both major political groups.
Socialism means the workers control the means of production which is an antiquated term but can definitely mean direct ownership of businesses. So worker coops are certainly socialist. It doesn’t really make sense to speak of socialism as a single system since it’s more of a collection of ideas, most of which having never been tried. I assume you are talking about the USSR and those who followed its economic system. While I agree that that system was bad, they also didn’t grant workers real control over the economy and weren’t really socialist by the original definition. Even Lenin referred to their system as state capitalism, which they advocated for because marxists believe that capitalism has to advance to a certain stage before socialism can take root. The stated plan was to eventually move towards socialism but of course they never did because when do dictators ever want to give up power?
Most people think socialism is about free markets vs state planning but this is just Soviet and US propaganda. While some socialists did advocate for state planned economies, you can also have state planned capitalist economies such as the nazi war economy.
Anyway, that’s all esoteric political theory and not super relevant to worker coops which almost everyone agrees are pretty cool.
Problem I have here is that the government doesn’t need to change. Markets would exist how they do. Hell even businesses would run as they do with private owners and capitalist investing freely. What I would suggest changing is any company who wants to go public to become something larger they should have to restructure as a cooperative or something similar where the employees have a majority stake in the shares while the rest can be sold publicly. so for me I feel like it’s a bit of a mix but ultimately it’s still all exists in a capitalist market with all the intention of being acting and behaving like capitalist.
Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone?
That’s how capitalism should work, in its best and purest form. Everyone starts with an equal playing field and competes for profits. The competition promotes advancements in science and efficiency that make life better for everyone.
Obviously this is an unattainable ideal, but it’s something to strive for.
That would be a significant departure from its original meaning. Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working. On the other hand, socialism is ownership or control of the economy by workers. Worker coops definitely could be considered a form of socialism, albeit it is probably the one that is most similar to capitalism since it still involves markets. So if you want to call worker coops capitalist then it would be both capitalist and socialist at the same time which is rather confusing to me.
But I mean words change, I think it’s a bit confusing to call this capitalism but maybe it would be more politically viable if we called it that. Lots of people are afraid of socialism because of the USSR and their atrocities.
That’s what I like most about this. Is it’s such a mix of both that maybe it is possible to have more people come around to the idea. Why have these Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos who become insanely wealthy at a scale that is practically more powerful than some countries all because they run a business. And not like they did it without going public. They amassed the wealth by becoming a publicly traded company. We should have better regulations.
Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working
I think that’s only true because in early capitalism, only the existing wealthy were able to participate in the system. That’s still the case to a large degree, but it’s not an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It was just an incidental aspect of capitalism in the world as it existed.
True capitalists believe that the more competition, the better. Giving ordinary workers a higher stake in their company promotes a much broader level of competition. I think it’s totally fair to describe worker co-ops in terms of capitalism, and as you said it would really help the branding.
I disagree. The concentration of wealth has always been a core feature of capitalism from the beginning, and the original definition was all about that feature of it. It’s what separates it from earlier merchant economies.
The only times we’ve seen this trend reverse is during major calamities, or by highly organized political action, usually by socialists or anarchists.
Capitalists claim to love competition and the system works much better in its presence. But the reality is that capitalism always trends towards monopoly without or fixed efforts to resist corporate power.
Coops will need organized support as well if they are to grow at the expense of traditionally owned businesses. For one thing, there needs to be a legal structure that outlines how they can operate, grow, etc. There also needs to be a source of capital for them to get off the ground. I personally think expecting workers to front this capital is unrealistic since most have little in the way of savings. Community banks and credit unions would be a great option for this credit source. Locally minted currencies could also help, though that’s a whole separate and quite complicated topic.
But yeah if you want to rebrand this as a new and improved form of capitalism I guess I won’t stop you, even if it’s technically incorrect.
Yea meritocratic society would be cool. But also getting there would be a shit show. I think we should hold it as an ideal to achieve but also accept that things don’t need to be always be fair.
Shore up public education federally and give good evidence how private education is against meritocratic society and therefore against what capitalism should be. Every kid should have access to resources and standard education up until they are old enough to compete based on their own merit. And then it’s a rat race.
If they made me king of America, that would be my number one policy objective.
Free masters degrees for anyone going into teaching. Eventually free college for all will be a goal, but first, teachers.
Massive investments into schools. I want a single class to have a maximum size of 7 students. This will require a lot more teachers but also a lot more physical space. In the 6 years it takes to train up new teachers, also build new buildings.
Hire all those teachers with masters degrees for very high salaries. Comparable with private industry. Be very strict with teaching credential requirements and require ongoing testing and studying to maintain a teacher’s license. Hire 2-3 teachers aides per teacher.
How do we fund this? Nationalize all state education departments. School funding is no longer tied to how much the property in that neighborhood is worth. Base it purely on enrollment, with no incentives for helping kids graduate. Minimal restrictions on funding except strong oversight against administration hoovering up all the money for themselves.
I think if you get highly educated, well-paid teachers in small class settings with adequate funding and an assistant, the teachers will go above and beyond for students. You don’t need so much top-down control. Hire very good teachers, and then give them the freedom and the ability to teach well.
One generation of this, and so many problems will fix themselves. The Republican party will collapse. Climate change will become the #1 priority (though hopefully by that point we’ve stabilized our GHG output and are in the sequestration phase). We’ll be inoculated against misinfo. We’ll have an explosion of new products and businesses.
How does an Employee Stock Ownership Plan work? How do partners/employees make money with it? When you hold stock, don’t you need to sell it/liquidate it in order to make money?
And how do you hire somebody? Do you sell your shares to the person at no cost or something?
I’m confused.
Every year I get shares from my company. The vesting period is typically longer. For me it took 7 years to be fully vested. But I was accumulating every year. When I leave the company, the company will pay out my shares and I can tell them where to put the funds. But the higher base salary I have, the more shares I get. Also the people retiring or leaving the company, the shares get bought back by the company and redistribute to the employees. At least that’s how it works at the ESOP I work at. Kinda a simplistic view of it.
When someone is hired, they don’t get shares. They are enrolled into the ESOP program. Then after some time, they will eventually start accruing shares on a regular basis.
Sell their stock for money, or stocks owned may pay dividends, or both.
Yes. But only a small percentage of the employees are retiring and selling their stock at any given time. There are usually limits on how and when employee stock awards can be sold before retirement.
The usual way. After hiring, hires receive stock as a part of their compensation.
It’s just part of their compensation. Longer tenure employees end up with more stock earned over time, and may also receive more stock per pay period to reward loyalty.
Implied question: If employees can sell stock won’t the company eventually be publicly traded?
There lots of ways the rules for holding the stock can be structured to prevent that, while still having real monetary value to retirees.
It’s a bit much for a post here, though. And it varies by country, I think.
Think of it like a founder selling their company to their current employees.
Current employees have no money but will if/when their future company does well.
A third party pays the owner now and manages this account.
Once employees retire, they sell their shares to the company, and the company uses that for new employees!
deleted by creator
Don’t take this the wrong way, but this made me bust out laughing…
Boy, if that isn’t just a perfect example of the perversion of our economic system. “You can’t make ACTUAL money with it, you can only make money by participating the meta gambling game.”
No, stock entitles you to dividends, which is just a fancy way of saying “a share of the profits”. Like, a company brings in A amount of money (gross income) in a year, spends B of that on payroll and whatnot (expenses), maybe puts away C of that into a savings or spending account, and everything that’s left, D, gets given to the owners. If you have stock in the company, that’s you.
Of course, dividends are generally very small (like, think savings interest) compared to what you can make trading and speculating, so it’s never good enough for the rich.
It’s also rather common for companies to pay no dividends, because they just put all the leftover money into C. Which isn’t even necessarily bad, it’s generally built on the idea that keeping the money in the company will give the company more room for growth, I.E. raising the stock price, with the assumption that that will be worth more than the dividends may have been. But for so many companies, that just never ends. Sooner or later, the growth won’t be sustainable, and many companies just collapse under their own weight, leaving the stock worthless.
No need to be so condescending. I’m very financially literate and I had a similar question - because dividends are so small and rare nowadays that they just didn’t cross my mind.
There is a city in Spain called Mondrago. I first heard about it years ago.
The way it was brought up to me was that the people there are happy. And we should also be happy. But why are they happier on average then others.
My favorite part too is that this is capitalism. Its not communism. It isn’t socialism. You can bring this to the right wing whoevers and argue that this is a better way.
I mean collective employee ownership can’t really be considered capitalism. Who are the capitalists in this economy? Everyone? It works very differently.
Generally most proponents of worker-coops are considered market socialists or anarchists, depending on their attitudes toward the state.
That said it can exist within capitalism, though it’s not clear whether capitalism will allow this ownership structure to expand significantly.
The capitalists are the workers. They collectively want to increase their profits and grow their company and invest in the markets. This isn’t socialism, anarchy or anything else. It’s capitalist. Socialism, communism are not good systems. Cooperatives sit in a neat place that bridges ideas between both major political groups.
Socialism means the workers control the means of production which is an antiquated term but can definitely mean direct ownership of businesses. So worker coops are certainly socialist. It doesn’t really make sense to speak of socialism as a single system since it’s more of a collection of ideas, most of which having never been tried. I assume you are talking about the USSR and those who followed its economic system. While I agree that that system was bad, they also didn’t grant workers real control over the economy and weren’t really socialist by the original definition. Even Lenin referred to their system as state capitalism, which they advocated for because marxists believe that capitalism has to advance to a certain stage before socialism can take root. The stated plan was to eventually move towards socialism but of course they never did because when do dictators ever want to give up power?
Most people think socialism is about free markets vs state planning but this is just Soviet and US propaganda. While some socialists did advocate for state planned economies, you can also have state planned capitalist economies such as the nazi war economy.
Anyway, that’s all esoteric political theory and not super relevant to worker coops which almost everyone agrees are pretty cool.
Problem I have here is that the government doesn’t need to change. Markets would exist how they do. Hell even businesses would run as they do with private owners and capitalist investing freely. What I would suggest changing is any company who wants to go public to become something larger they should have to restructure as a cooperative or something similar where the employees have a majority stake in the shares while the rest can be sold publicly. so for me I feel like it’s a bit of a mix but ultimately it’s still all exists in a capitalist market with all the intention of being acting and behaving like capitalist.
That’s how capitalism should work, in its best and purest form. Everyone starts with an equal playing field and competes for profits. The competition promotes advancements in science and efficiency that make life better for everyone.
Obviously this is an unattainable ideal, but it’s something to strive for.
That would be a significant departure from its original meaning. Capitalism was about economic ownership by capitalists—the class of people at the top of the economic hierarchy, who are wealthy enough to start their own businesses or buy shares from others and earn money without working. On the other hand, socialism is ownership or control of the economy by workers. Worker coops definitely could be considered a form of socialism, albeit it is probably the one that is most similar to capitalism since it still involves markets. So if you want to call worker coops capitalist then it would be both capitalist and socialist at the same time which is rather confusing to me.
But I mean words change, I think it’s a bit confusing to call this capitalism but maybe it would be more politically viable if we called it that. Lots of people are afraid of socialism because of the USSR and their atrocities.
That’s what I like most about this. Is it’s such a mix of both that maybe it is possible to have more people come around to the idea. Why have these Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos who become insanely wealthy at a scale that is practically more powerful than some countries all because they run a business. And not like they did it without going public. They amassed the wealth by becoming a publicly traded company. We should have better regulations.
I think that’s only true because in early capitalism, only the existing wealthy were able to participate in the system. That’s still the case to a large degree, but it’s not an intrinsic feature of capitalism. It was just an incidental aspect of capitalism in the world as it existed.
True capitalists believe that the more competition, the better. Giving ordinary workers a higher stake in their company promotes a much broader level of competition. I think it’s totally fair to describe worker co-ops in terms of capitalism, and as you said it would really help the branding.
I disagree. The concentration of wealth has always been a core feature of capitalism from the beginning, and the original definition was all about that feature of it. It’s what separates it from earlier merchant economies.
The only times we’ve seen this trend reverse is during major calamities, or by highly organized political action, usually by socialists or anarchists.
Capitalists claim to love competition and the system works much better in its presence. But the reality is that capitalism always trends towards monopoly without or fixed efforts to resist corporate power.
Coops will need organized support as well if they are to grow at the expense of traditionally owned businesses. For one thing, there needs to be a legal structure that outlines how they can operate, grow, etc. There also needs to be a source of capital for them to get off the ground. I personally think expecting workers to front this capital is unrealistic since most have little in the way of savings. Community banks and credit unions would be a great option for this credit source. Locally minted currencies could also help, though that’s a whole separate and quite complicated topic.
But yeah if you want to rebrand this as a new and improved form of capitalism I guess I won’t stop you, even if it’s technically incorrect.
I highly recommend this video if you’re interested in worker coops, how they work, and how they can be expanded in the modern economy: https://youtu.be/yZHYiz60R5Q?si=QZbmpUqgjpuz9IHp
Yea meritocratic society would be cool. But also getting there would be a shit show. I think we should hold it as an ideal to achieve but also accept that things don’t need to be always be fair.
Shore up public education federally and give good evidence how private education is against meritocratic society and therefore against what capitalism should be. Every kid should have access to resources and standard education up until they are old enough to compete based on their own merit. And then it’s a rat race.
If they made me king of America, that would be my number one policy objective.
Free masters degrees for anyone going into teaching. Eventually free college for all will be a goal, but first, teachers.
Massive investments into schools. I want a single class to have a maximum size of 7 students. This will require a lot more teachers but also a lot more physical space. In the 6 years it takes to train up new teachers, also build new buildings.
Hire all those teachers with masters degrees for very high salaries. Comparable with private industry. Be very strict with teaching credential requirements and require ongoing testing and studying to maintain a teacher’s license. Hire 2-3 teachers aides per teacher.
How do we fund this? Nationalize all state education departments. School funding is no longer tied to how much the property in that neighborhood is worth. Base it purely on enrollment, with no incentives for helping kids graduate. Minimal restrictions on funding except strong oversight against administration hoovering up all the money for themselves.
I think if you get highly educated, well-paid teachers in small class settings with adequate funding and an assistant, the teachers will go above and beyond for students. You don’t need so much top-down control. Hire very good teachers, and then give them the freedom and the ability to teach well.
One generation of this, and so many problems will fix themselves. The Republican party will collapse. Climate change will become the #1 priority (though hopefully by that point we’ve stabilized our GHG output and are in the sequestration phase). We’ll be inoculated against misinfo. We’ll have an explosion of new products and businesses.