Jump to content

The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Where are you getting that they are giving it away?  People have to buy the shares that the company offers...the company gets ACTUAL MONEY for the shares.  They don't have to give up control...they just have to have some divesting of who has ownership of the company through stock options.  And 20% is NOTHING to a company...most that exist today would ALREADY HIT THAT MARK and then some.  Most wouldn't have to change at all.

 

Disclaimer:  I worked 5 years for an investment bank.  I'm basing this above on my experience.

 

Where are you getting that employees would be buying the shares? And what makes anyone think the average worker will be able to magically buy more stock than they currently are able to? Many of these large companies are already publicly traded. If his plan is just that the company has to offer stock options, isn’t that basically available to them now?
 

Look, I’m not saying I know what his plan is in this regard. In fact it is one of the things I’ve heard about that does not seem to be addressed on his website (maybe I’m missing it?). I simply heard him briefly mention it in the last debate and am responding to people who maybe are making assumptions. I’d be really interested if you could point me in the direction of more specifics. It’s one of the few Bernie things I currently don’t like or agree with, based on my understanding of how it would work.

Link to post

  • Replies 12.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BigRedBuster

    1223

  • knapplc

    1177

  • Danny Bateman

    1045

  • RedDenver

    925

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Do you honestly not understand the difference between someone who said something stupid as an off color joke one time and some one who: Has been sued twice for housing discrimination against A

He is.

I honestly don't know what will happen tomorrow. But if Joe Biden wins, you will be allowed to own all the guns you want, worship your God however you want, and hate whomever you want in the privacy o

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Where are you getting that employees would be buying the shares? And what makes anyone think the average worker will be able to magically buy more stock than they currently are able to? Many of these large companies are already publicly traded. If his plan is just that the company has to offer stock options, isn’t that basically available to them now?
 

Look, I’m not saying I know what his plan is in this regard. In fact it is one of the things I’ve heard about that does not seem to be addressed on his website (maybe I’m missing it?). I simply heard him briefly mention it in the last debate and am responding to people who maybe are making assumptions. I’d be really interested if you could point me in the direction of more specifics. It’s one of the few Bernie things I currently don’t like or agree with, based on my understanding of how it would work.

 

It's common knowledge that employees are given stock options to buy shares at a reduced price.

 

Quote

Stock options are a form of compensation. Companies can grant them to employees, contractors, consultants and investors. These options, which are contracts, give an employee the right to buy (also called exercise) a set number of shares of the company stock at a pre-set price (known as the grant price). This offer doesn’t last forever, though. You have a set amount of time to exercise your options before they expire. Your employer might also require that you exercise your options within a period of time after leaving the company.

 

Many companies hoard the stock options for controlling the directions of a company by maintaining 51% or higher portions of the stock.  Each time you get a controlling interest in the company, you get board seats which allow you to vote on the direction that a company will take (CEO ousters, major initiatives, offering more stocks, etc).

 

So, that's why I'm so confused...these people would have to buy into the company...they're not giving things away.

 

Link to post

Not sure if you guys arguing about stocks knew this either...but in 1982, the SEC changed something in how companies handle stock buy back options....before that it was illegal because it caused manipulation in the stock price and allowed a few people to consolidate power over a company board of directors.

 

In other words, it's legal to manipulate the stock market...if you're rich enough to buy back stock.  It might be a bit harder if 20% of that stock was held by workers.  Here is Bernies plan on the topic:

 

Quote

Ban Stock Buybacks. Under this plan, large-scale stock buybacks will be treated like stock manipulation, just as they were before 1982. This will be done by repealing the Securities and Exchange Commission’s misguided Rule 10b-18. Since Trump signed his tax plan into law, corporations have announced over $1 trillion in stock repurchases which provide absolutely no benefit to the job-creating productive economy. These buybacks are nothing more than stock price manipulation and must be treated as such.

 

from here:  https://berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

Where are you getting that they are giving it away?  People have to buy the shares that the company offers...the company gets ACTUAL MONEY for the shares.  They don't have to give up control...they just have to have some divesting of who has ownership of the company through stock options.  And 20% is NOTHING to a company...most that exist today would ALREADY HIT THAT MARK and then some.  Most wouldn't have to change at all.

 

Disclaimer:  I worked 5 years for an investment bank.  I'm basing this above on my experience.

 

Where are you getting that they are paying for them?

 

Quote

Share Corporate Wealth with Workers. Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly tradedcompanies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of DemocraticEmployee Ownership Funds.

 

Link to post

2 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

It's common knowledge that employees are given stock options to buy shares at a reduced price.

 

 

Many companies hoard the stock options for controlling the directions of a company by maintaining 51% or higher portions of the stock.  Each time you get a controlling interest in the company, you get board seats which allow you to vote on the direction that a company will take (CEO ousters, major initiatives, offering more stocks, etc).

 

So, that's why I'm so confused...these people would have to buy into the company...they're not giving things away.

 

If the plan was to offer employees stock options at the same sweet deal the muckety mucks get them, I might be okay with that. But I’m not taking your word for it and that is not at all what the link you posted claims is the plan. All it says is “give” and “give” and again “give”. So I guess my question is, what makes you think the vehicle is stock options and that the employees will be purchasing anything and not have it mandated that it is given to them?

 

I hate to be “that” guy demanding links but I think in this case it is warranted to back up the claims you are making. I want to believe that’s the case but I need to see it officially and not just rely on your word and have you continue talking down to people like you know what’s going on.

Link to post

 

5 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What on Gods green earth makes forcing a business owner to give away their company stock if it gets a certain size make sense?

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company. I mean, unless you're going to argue that the owner built the business alone or in spite of their employees.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Link to post
1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

 

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Good friggen Lord. 
 

The government should not be forcing any company “especially a private one” to give its shares away. 
 

Absolutely mind blowing. 
 

That is ABSOLUTLY radical. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
24 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where does he mention stock options and why should a private company be forced to do that?

I’m on your side here (maybe) but I think there is a world of difference between having to offer up to 2% of the company in stock options, until it is 20% employee owned, if said company is already offering sweet stock option deals only to the higher ups. I guess imo, if they want to offer them to the top brass then they can be forced to also offer them to the worker bees. But no company should be forced to offer any discounted stock options and they definitely shouldn’t be forced to simply give away chunks of the company. They would always have the option to not offer any stock options. Not sure what the actual plan is but there are some definite non-starters possible here.

Link to post

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

Good friggen Lord. 
 

The government should not be forcing any company “especially a private one” to give its shares away. 
 

Absolutely mind blowing. 
 

That is ABSOLUTLY radical. 

Not even sharing a portion of what people have helped to build is ABSOLUTELY radical. It's hoarding on a level that is absolutely mind blowing. (And the good friggin Lord would tell you the same.)

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

This isn't about giving random people a piece of the company but rather giving a piece to the people who built the company. I mean, unless you're going to argue that the owner built the business alone or in spite of their employees.

 

I'm not sure if Bernie's plan is the best one, but something to workers back some of the fruits their labor has built isn't radical. And does asking for a 2% annual return to workers after a company goes public or gets over $100 million in value not make sense? I'm open to alternatives.

Here’s an alternative. If employees don’t like how the company is treating or paying them, they can take their vital company building skills to another employer or, better yet, they can start their own company and show everyone how it’s done. The size or revenue of the company doesn’t have a thing to do with this discussion.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Here’s an alternative. If employees don’t like how the company is treating or paying them, they can take their vital company building skills to another employer or, better yet, they can start their own company and show everyone how it’s done. The size or revenue of the company doesn’t have a thing to do with this discussion.

You know that's not a real alternative. I can also turn it around and say if the owners don't like having to given a small portion to their employees, then they should take their skills and build the business without any employees - it's just as silly.

 

I simply don't understand the thinking that an owner who's business has not just made it, but has $100+ million is somehow so put upon to only keep 80%. And even more crazy is that the 20% isn't just evaporating or going to competitors but going to the people who helped the owner make the business survive and thrive.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

You know that's not a real alternative. I can also turn it around and say if the owners don't like having to given a small portion to their employees, then they should take their skills and build the business without any employees - it's just as silly.

 

I simply don't understand the thinking that an owner who's business has not just made it, but has $100+ million is somehow so put upon to only keep 80%. And even more crazy is that the 20% isn't just evaporating or going to competitors but going to the people who helped the owner make the business survive and thrive.

This type thinking is completely foreign to me. There are so many fallacies. What does it matter how much the company is worth? $1000 or $100M, it's just arbitrary. You have no way of proving or assuring that the employees who may gain ownership had anything at all to do with helping the success of the company.  What about intellectual property? Are others entitled to the ideas that made it successful also? Companies that are built from the ground up take more work and sacrifice than the typical 9 to 5er can even imagine.  You may get your wish though. If I had started and built a company to this level and then was told I had to give 20% away, I would liquidate every cent I could get out of it, take MY money and leave it and all the entitled employees to rot. But no worries, Im sure that forklift operator or newly hired welder could do just as fine a job as I ever did rebuilding the damned thing. It's asinine that anyone can begin to think this is right or fair. If we want to begin to fix wealth inequality in this country, and we do, I would suggest there are about a thousand better ways to go about it than common thievery and commandeering.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

You know that's not a real alternative. I can also turn it around and say if the owners don't like having to given a small portion to their employees, then they should take their skills and build the business without any employees - it's just as silly.

 

I simply don't understand the thinking that an owner who's business has not just made it, but has $100+ million is somehow so put upon to only keep 80%. And even more crazy is that the 20% isn't just evaporating or going to competitors but going to the people who helped the owner make the business survive and thrive.

The company pays employees. 
 

people act like it’s slave labor and they are forced to do it. 
 

and, why is starting their own company not and option? It happens all the time. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...