Shares generally give you two benefits, one is a share of the up/downsides, and another is a right of governance in the company. The way employee share distributions are done right now means employees get a tiny fraction of the first and none of the second, even though they are a large stakeholder in the company's future.
This is a moot point if you understand how capitalism works and the goal of corporate executives: ensuring maximum value for shareholders. As I’ve mentioned before, Google employees own a large amount of stock compare to the average person. Consequently, they will benefit no matter what
> This is a moot point if you understand how capitalism works and the goal of corporate executives: ensuring maximum value for shareholders.
Yes, and the goal of communism is to "share the resources and maximize everybody's potential", wonderful if you are incredibly naive and believe that these systems always do exactly what it says on the sticker, and just an empty platitude if you've lived at least two days in the real world.
Here's an example [1] of pro capitalists fucking over 49% of the shareholders to favor 51% of them, and you can find plenty more examples of you look through recent financial news. So tell me once again how being a 1e-7th shareholder of a trillion dollar tech company is guaranteed to "benefit you no matter what"?
Fair point (this is the best counterargument in this thread so far), but do you have actual evidence of Google c level executives fucking over employee owned shares?
Shares generally give you two benefits, one is a share of the up/downsides, and another is a right of governance in the company. The way employee share distributions are done right now means employees get a tiny fraction of the first and none of the second, even though they are a large stakeholder in the company's future.