/new/ - New

>My proposal is this: If you hire somebody then they need to be given shares of the company, simple as that.
Not realistic for many small businesses. but I wouldn't be against a law where it's for 50+ employee companies. Seems to work for Huawei. When you have 50+ employees you no longer have a business, you're trying to build a fiefdom, which is what a corporation is. The first two corporations (English East India Company and Dutch East India Company) had their own private naval and land militaries.

>really gay
Yeah kinda. Soycialists believe that currency as we know it be abolished and replaced with punch card credits, essentially a "Truck Wage", except instead of payment in the form of gift cards to the local corporate outlet they're to the government which similarly greatly restricts what you're allowed to own.

There's a reason soycialists and communists always use a tooth brush or clothing articles as their first instinctual examples of what items fit their arbitrary "personal property" designation [what you're allowed to have as a working person unaffiliated with the state], because they're some of the few things you can own you couldn't conceivably turn into "private property" and capitalize on with or without the state's express written permission.

The system as we know its' imminent collapse if anything apart from importation of its enemies (a relatively recent phenomenon that's not intrinsic to it) has come from its unerring support of the higher education system no matter how corrupt and foreign it'd clearly gotten and remained since the mid-to-late 20th century. At this point each and every institution is staffed from top to bottom with pedantic, psuedo-intellectual communist retards who have, despite their charitable rhetoric, incidentally driven all their students into decades worth of debt ("whoops").

From this arrangement which we find ourselves in, with over 1.75 trillion dollars in collective debt and many billions in annual interest obligations, greater wages across the board are demanded by under skilled, over-credentialed and greatly burdened graduates, and subsequently greater costs are borne by consumers at all levels. College should have seen mass boycott and cultural rejection many years ago and the consequences of our continued faith in it despite its open hostility is far worse than what you denigrate as "sharecropping".

>shares of the company

You take two stores or service providers that do the same thing more or less, for whatever reason, one of them is substantially more successful than the other despite having the same number of employees. Do the employees of the less successful store make less credit stamps than their peers at the other store, and are they then considered to be oppressed by the employees of the other store? Does the state step in at this point and what do they do? How does any of this work at scale?

>>4157
>Not realistic for many small businesses.
As long as there's no way for larger organizations to jew the system by claiming their subsidiaries are a separate "small business" or something I would agree with this.
>When you have 50+ employees you no longer have a business, you're trying to build a fiefdom, which is what a corporation is. The first two corporations (English East India Company and Dutch East India Company) had their own private naval and land militaries.
Well put.
>>4159
>Do the employees of the less successful store make less credit stamps than their peers at the other store, and are they then considered to be oppressed by the employees of the other store? Does the state step in at this point and what do they do? How does any of this work at scale?
No, why would they? The goal is aimed toward weakening the power employers have to abuse their employees (and also the ability of said employers to take advantage of large, saturated labor pools), not to over-burden the system with bureaucratic measures in order to enforce vague ideas of "fairness". Obviously some state involvement would still be necessary to make sure obligations are being met. There should be a clear, straight-forward set of rules, that are easy for any large organization to meet the requirements for, and that have absolutely no wiggle room. No exceptions or exemptions for kikes to squirm their way out of. Now, how would this help employees? Well, one company I'm familiar with that gives stock is Publix. They give their employees 3.5 shares per week, they are worth 14.75 dollars and pay 40cents(10 cents quarterly) per share in dividends at this time, so that is an extra 44.25 dollars and a 1.4 dollar annual dividend payout per week. In addition, as a share holder you also have a vote in how the company operates. This means the longer you're there, the more security and power you have in the company. You aren't reliant on the whims of your boss to give you a raise or promotion. You can be rest assured that even as a menial wagecuck, your life is on a slow upward incline, you have a savings, you have a pension, and you may even end up as an executive if you're old as fuck just by working at a grocery store. I see no reason why this might be infeasible for any major company. We know why it won't happen realistically, but still.

money is just a religion. natural law is the way the truth and te light.

mark passio is a prophet sent by god

>>4299
Mark passio is fantastic. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about the guy.

>>4299
Religion and natural law are not mutually exclusive. Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees, who are pack animals, than orangutans who are solitary animals. What you call "religion" is one form of behaviors humans exhibit to maintain their standing in the social order of a pack. I think rational might be the word you're looking for, not natural.

>>4301
>believing tardwinian evolution

prepare to be passio'd

https://odysee.com/@woeih:e/Mark-Passio-Cosmic-Abandonment:0

>>4299
>>4307
>Mark Passio explains how EVERYONE has the exact SAME Rights. No one has any more or less Rights than any one else. Also, since Rights are not created by humanity, and since they are the birth-right of humanity, gifted to us by the Creator of the Universe, no human being or group of human beings is actually capable of "granting" Rights to anyone else, nor is any human being capable of "revoking" Rights from anyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK0P3YGnOLo

None of this has any bearing on reality.

>>4313
but he said it in front of a poduim and posted it on the internet. therefore it is true

>>4335
Yes.

>>4335
the stepping stones of opioid abuse. there is help.