Okay; just so there is no confusion about what you are talking about, your view is that a person who has a vision of starting a company, invest his life’s savings into starting the company, then as soon as the company is up and running, he should turn the entire business over to the people he hired to make his widgets; people without his vision, people with different goals in mind than he had when he started the business, people with no experience in running a company, people who invested nothing, or borrowed no money to get the company started, (so if everything runs into the ground, they pretty much do not have a dog in the fight, they can just take their widget making skills to another company and run it into the ground) your view is that the person who risked everything to start the company should turn it over to these people and hope everything works out okay; is this your vision of how things should be? If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
Lots of laborers start business; but once they start the business, they choose not to turn the business over to the people he hired; just because you are a good worker doesn’t mean you are a good manager
Happens all the time! I know of many cases of several people coming together and start an LLC and they work the business until eventually they get big enough to hire staff. But it would be foolish for them to turn everything over to the staff they hired, it’s their vision, they decide the direction of the company they started, not the staff who does not share their vision nor their investment.
What happens when the workers make decisions the guys that started the company consider bad decisions? Do they have to go along with those bad decisions? After all the workers don’t really care if the business goes under, they’ve invested nothing and they can just take their skills somewhere else; but the guy who invested everything, lost everything. Does that sound fair to you?
Maybe they should be a bit more selective about who they want to work with.
You've got a lot wrong here.
So when you hire someone to make widgets, you don't hire the best widget maker, you have to hire the person who knows how to make widgets and is also a good manager also? Doesn't that put you at a disadvantage?
What do you mean by Capitalist? In your scenario, the workers ARE capitalists. As far as the initial investor, if he makes a bad decision, the worse case scenario for the worker is that he no longer has a job which puts him in the same position he was before the initial investor started the company.
Yet it been describe with nightmare description by ex employees, on reddit. Can't link due to rules per usual.
Why does that surprise you? These kind of people like the work that they do; many of them will work till the day they die.
Was Jeff Bezos born rich? Was Mark Zuckerberg born rich? Remember; 80% of our richest are first generation rich! Your idea that successful business owners are just rich people who throw their extra money around to start business is wrong; if that were the case half of them wouldn’t be failing within the first 5 years, they would just throw more money at it.
So what happens when the business grows to the point that the group of 7 needs to hire more people? Do the 7 still get to maintain control of the business? Or do they allow the workers who have no experience in management, no investment in the company, have just as much control of running the business as they do?
