> It leads to deviant behavior by public companies
From my experience, having majority shareholders don't lead to "deviant behavior" any more than companies with no majority shareholder. In fact, one could argue that many of the ugly collective action problems facing the world today stem from organizations in which nobody has the power to veto unethical policies.
I think the problem here is that Zuck can veto. I think it's that Zuck is unethical.
I've never understood why rank and file employees don't get a vote despite not owning stock.
Arguably, they are the ones most affected with the most to lose. A salaried employee with no stock options likely depends more on their continued paycheck and the continued success of the company than any large shareholder or even the class of employees who hold stock.
The media, of course, isn't owned by workers, and so rampant character assassination is par for the course for anybody who moots ideas like this ("czech spy", "arch brexiteer", "anti-semite", "terrorist sympathizer", etc.).
Because they don't own the company... You say they have the most to lose, but I would say the investors who put 100s of millions of dollars into the company have more.
I guess I'm saying it is relative. If you stand to lose your child's college fund, your home, or the ability to eat next week I'd classify that as, "more to lose" than 100 million dollars.
I understand why this isn't practicable. Those who have large investments have a large incentive to educate themselves on how the market works and how corporate governance will impact overall success for the company.
Sometimes hard and unpopular decisions are necessary in order to keep the company profitable.
I do, however, see real value in having input from a sector that's focused more on long term success than short term profits.
They're giving their time -- literally the one non-fungible resource any human being has -- in exchange for money. Money comes and goes. You never get your 20s or 30s back.
Literally everyone does, it's the definition of work, and you may or may not have to give more of it to get a desired standard of living. (Unless you don't have to work because you're filthy rich or connected.)
The question is, how well can you sell it and whether the conditions are otherwise acceptable.
Anyone who draws income via rent-seeking does not trade time for money.
Your landlord, most of the time (i.e. when they're not repairing or maintaining their properties), is not trading money for time; they are charging you for access to materials which, moment to moment, costs them nothing.
Patent trolls make money without trading away their time -- you work to pay for access to an idea, which costs them nothing to maintain.
One could go on and on with examples of widespread rent-seeking fields of work and industry; but in general, no, it isn't literally everyone who trades time for money.
Only through one perspective. If you have a billion dollars, losing a few 100 million dollars isn’t as bad as losing a job or a black mark on your resume if you’re living paycheck to paycheck.
You can take financial resources of the public or you can have veto power. If you have both, you’re not a “Public Company” anymore and your stocks should be immediately delisted from public markets.
To do that, you would need to change the law first, and then go after FB.
Given the fact that what happens appears to be us going after tech firms under current law, I wouldn't hold out much hope for needed changes in the legal environment. For some reason, (money), people just don't want to do that.
From my experience, having majority shareholders don't lead to "deviant behavior" any more than companies with no majority shareholder. In fact, one could argue that many of the ugly collective action problems facing the world today stem from organizations in which nobody has the power to veto unethical policies.
I think the problem here is that Zuck can veto. I think it's that Zuck is unethical.