Hey, Bernie Sanders: "Buy" Should Not Be Another Word For "Rob"
Private property is one of the foundations of a democracy, and too few Americans seem to understand that.
I find Bernie Sanders cute for how he reminds me of some amalgam of my Jewish uncles on one-too-many Manischewitz, but his policies are anything but cute.
Clueless editors at Newsweek gave an article this title:
UNDER BERNIE SANDERS' EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP PLAN, WORKERS CAN BUY THEIR COMPANY
The article, by Andrew Whalen, does not report anything of the sort.
Of course, workers can buy public companies right now by getting investors and pooling money to buy up stock.
Bernie Sanders has a different thing in mind.
The Corporate Accountability and Democracy Plan is a sprawling collection of measures to hold corporations accountable to their constituent workers, with an employee ownership stake of up to 20 percent of the company as its centerpiece. Under the proposal, all publicly traded companies, corporations with $100 million in annual revenue or with a $100 million balance sheet would be required to provide 2 percent or more of company stock to workers each year, until 20 percent of the company is employee-owned. An employee elected Board of Trustees would oversee the funds and distribute dividends.According to the campaign, the plan would affect 56 million American workers at 22,000 companies, who would receive an average dividend payment of over $5,000 a year -- a partial antidote to the income inequality targeted by many of Sanders' policy proposals, from Medicare for All to his housing plan. The announcement of the new corporate ownership plan came paired with a handful of the statistics Sanders repeatedly wields on the campaign trail, such as the holding of 97 percent of all capital income among the richest 10 percent of Americans, or the stagnant wage growth that has resulted in the median American family holding less wealth than in 1982.
There's more:
Another major component of the Corporate Accountability and Democracy Plan would see workers at the same large corporations elect 45 percent of board seats. Under certain conditions, employees could take full ownership over their companies, with a guarantee of "a right of first refusal," should a company go up for sale, propose to close or if a factory is moved overseas. In each instance, employees would have the option to transform their workplace into an employee-owned business via Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or a worker-owned cooperative. To support this transition, the Sanders corporate accountability plan proposes a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank, with $500 million funding to help employees transition their company to a worker-owned model via low-interest loans and other assistance."The broad concept of how you create a democratic society in which working people have more control over their lives is a theme that I have obviously been working on and believed throughout my entire career," Sanders told the Associated Press in a Monday interview.
It's anything but "how you create a democratic society." It's a lite version of what they did, "nationalizing" property, in the Soviet Union. (They always use the Orwellian clean version to name these things. "Theft" sounds so disagreeable in its accuracy.)
RELATED...about the "inequality" policing of Sanders and others. It's not benign: "If you get rid of formal hierarchies what you end up with is informal ones, which are regularly worse. And if you get rid of informal hierarchies you end up with war," writes Christopher Kletzer at Quillette.
What happens when the workers leave the company.
NicoleK at October 14, 2019 10:06 PM
What happens when the workers leave the company. - NicoleK
That's what I was wondering. Does Sanders mean that the employees would own their shares collectively as one entity? And if the employee leaves the company he would no longer be an owner?
I don't want to own shares in the company I work for. Sometimes they go down in value, and they haven't paid dividends in ages. I'd rather just have them pay me the money. I'm good at managing suicidal teenagers with PTSD, major depressive disorder and psychosis. I would suck at choosing directors to run the company or trustees to manage funds; and as far as owning stock, I have bad luck. And I haven't seen any evidence that my fellow employees would be any better.
My employer, like many other employers, has an employee stock ownership plan that any employee can participate in to whatever extent he chooses; and a 401K with matching contributions, in which each employee can manage his own account to his heart's content.
Besides, whenever I want I can use however much I want of the money I'm paid to buy stocks - in the company I work for or any other company, as can any other employee who wants to.
Does Bernie Sanders know about these things? His plan sounds like less freedom, choice and control for me.
Ken R at October 15, 2019 12:43 AM
Bernie's plan sounds like some guy watching events unfold and realizing, "hey, that guy got rich on stocks. I wanna get rich on stocks."
People don't realize that simply investing in stocks is not enough. One must study the market, read about the market, and lose a lot of money before one becomes an "expert."
Oh, and what Ken R. said. Companies these days don't pay dividends on stocks, too expensive. Bernie's dividend plan sounds like a back-door universal income plan.
Conan the Grammarian at October 15, 2019 4:14 AM
"employees would have the option to transform their workplace into an employee-owned business via Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or a worker-owned cooperative. "
Because it worked so well for United Airlines...
I don't mean to demean employee-owned companies in general. There are certainly ones that are successful, although few of them will be found in the Fortune 500. I found a list of the top ones in the U.S., and on top of the list is Publix, the Florida-based supermarket chain. Certainly not a small company, but not in the General Motors category. Scrolling through the list, the names I recognize are mostly companies that were founded as employee-owned. Maybe that's the only way it generally works.
So yeah, what Sanders is talking about isn't "ownership", it's confiscation. Can't help but wonder what the affirmative-action quotas are going to be on that 45 percent of the directors.
Cousin Dave at October 15, 2019 6:56 AM
I want 45% of teacher's unions should be parents and taxpayers. Would Bernie support that ?
Nick at October 15, 2019 7:56 AM
Conan Says:
"Companies these days don't pay dividends on stocks, too expensive."
What are you talking about?
Growth stocks tend not to pay dividends... but value stocks often do pay dividends.
This is why a stock like TSLA or AMZN won't have a dividend, because the stock is expected to go up due to being in a growth market.
On the other hand, stocks like MO and BP pay hefty dividends (yields above 6%).
Then there are stocks that are in transition between growth and value that introduce and grow a dividend year over year.
Artemis at October 15, 2019 8:23 AM
So if you work for a big company, you get a big reward. If you work for a small company, yo get bupkis. Microsoft, Google, GM employees - ka-ching. Local hardware store, restaurant, nail salon employees - nothing.
Sound perfectly fair.
Curtis at October 15, 2019 8:50 AM
Considering how many stocks are wrapped up in 401 k s or mutual funds, I always was wondering in reality how much of a company’s stock you would actually need to populate the board with your own people. I think we have that answer as 20%.
My guess hit close to 20% and the union puts their people in charge and it will be all over.
Joe j at October 15, 2019 8:52 AM
A different problem is it gives workers a risky financial outlook. All eggs in one basket isn’t the way to save. If you give people x shares in a company they will probably see that as their nest egg and save less elsewhere. If anything happens to said company, they are now out of job and beloved nest egg. It’s a gamble.
My guess, In non union companies, forming board of trustees to oversee the funds is one giant leap toward unionizing.
Joe j at October 15, 2019 9:07 AM
If anything happens to said company, they are now out of job and beloved nest egg. It’s a gamble.
Ask the employees of Bear-Sterns how that worked out for them.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 15, 2019 9:22 AM
Years ago I worked for a small company that was owned by one man - the founder of the company.
He was the one who took the gamble, put in the long hours, and risked everything to make it work. To the point when there were a couple of months our company's income wasn't quite enough to cover payroll and other expenses the owner took out a loan from the bank to pay everyone.
I wouldn't trust an employee-owned company to do the same thing. They just might vote to cannibalize everything to get paid and let the company go down the tubes.
charles at October 15, 2019 12:42 PM
This guy is and has been an idiot - and his wife bankrupted a college, FFS.
Why would anybody think he knows shit about money?
Fred Rogers would not want him to be his neighbor.
Radwaste at October 15, 2019 4:06 PM
I remember when you thought Trump was an economic mastermind because he was a billionaire.
Crid at October 15, 2019 4:49 PM
Radwaste,
Trump bankrupted a casino along with several other business ventures... why would anyone think he knows shit about money?
If association with bankruptcy was a disqualifying feature for political candidates for you then Trump wouldn't have your support.
Artemis at October 15, 2019 5:21 PM
There are already employee-owned companies. Let's say you work for one and you get shares each year. If you leave, it can be very hard to sell those shares because it is only an internal market.
There is a huge conflict between the owners (share-holders) and employees. The employees, if on the board, would have an incentive to rob the shareholders of $. This is what happens all the time with unions which have put many businesses out of business by striking. The reverse--the temptation to underpay employees--is ameliorated by the fact that employees can quit to take a better job. High turnover is a cost that a business generally tries to prevent.
In the example Charles gave (and I have friends also who own a company), in what way would it be just for the employees to own part of the company? How would that work when the owner built the whole thing himself and then hired 5 people?
What the dems are calling for if you add up all the demands is gov take over of the energy industry, banks, and any big company (Warren wants gov oversight on any big company). This is socialism. It always leads to economic stagnation and when they take over an industry the owners do NOT get fair market value. It is theft.
cc at October 16, 2019 11:20 AM
"I remember when you thought Trump was an economic mastermind because he was a billionaire."
Only by comparison with... you.
Among others, but you obviously know better. Got enough bitcoin to retire yet?
What I intend is for you to realize that billionaires just don't operate the way you - we - do. I've tried to say this before. I've met two while working at a megayacht yard in Miami years ago, and they just think differently. If it was easy, there would be more of them.
"Trump bankrupted a casino along with several other business ventures... why would anyone think he knows shit about money?
Because he still has it. How about you?
You apparently never noticed it was a college Ms. Sanders killed, not a speculative venture.
If association with bankruptcy was a disqualifying feature for political candidates for you then Trump wouldn't have your support.
No. Once again, you wedge your own view into what you read from others. I chose the businessman working in an environment where others could defend themselves over the pathological liar who sold office favors.
You're defending Bernie Sanders. You might want to look into that.
Radwaste at October 17, 2019 4:18 AM
The way I keep putting it is 'It isn't complicated, but it is hard.' It really isn't complicated to save up a couple million dollars. But most people don't even break $40k.
"... billionaires just don't operate the way you - we - do."
Stanley documented that quite well in The Millionaire Next Door. And also documented that he just didn't get it. If you read the book pay attention to the statistics and tables. Stanley's insights are not insightful.
Ben at October 17, 2019 11:07 AM
> What I intend is for you
> to realize
…Raddy…
> that billionaires just don't
> operate the way you - we - do.
Are you an infant?
Crid at October 17, 2019 7:39 PM
> Because he still has it.
By economic expansion, he's lost more than he inherited.
But you have stars in your eyes. Dreamboat!
Crid at October 17, 2019 7:41 PM
There will be more about this soon. For you!
Crid at October 18, 2019 5:16 AM
Are you an infant?
How many times must you ask others if they've ever kissed a girl, while apparently spending hours per day right here?
You are really arguing that you and billionaires operate the same way. That's some ego horsepower, right there. Any suggestion that someone else in public view might have a talent, you deride.
It's not about you, and not about me. It's that Bernie Sanders is an old, frail, gutless, confused victim of Hillary's party who can rally those who know nothing about the economy, or money itself.
But you post more about Trump than anyone here, so, hey, play to that strength. Ignore everyting but the insult you've suffered - the suggestion that someone, somewhere is better at something.
Radwaste at October 19, 2019 7:42 AM
Leave a comment