It's precious to humans, not to anything else. Precious is just a relative term.

Ok, news to me lol. I’m not sure that’s common knowledge, but thank you for sharing and now I know!

Sure, but that would make the employer giving 0.0001% to an employee much less attractive than the employer giving 0.1%. It’s just another benefit to be used to attract the talent you’re looking for.

How are you not working for the McD’s corporation?

Also, the employer could implement a vesting structure to prevent people grabbing equity and leaving after two weeks or some other short timeframe.

I also don’t think it necessarily HAS to come out of your pay, but maybe there is an election process where you determine your allocations if necessary.

Why can’t you have all of those things? I don’t see how “chill office culture” and equity are mutually exclusive.

I was just asking the relevance, not saying felons shouldn’t be provided equity. If you don’t want to hire a felon under this structure, then don’t.

It wouldn’t just happen on day 1, the employer could determine a vesting structure that would make them comfortable.

1. Negligible is up to the potential employee to decide.
2. Can you expand on that? I think it’s more reasonable to say most opportunities don’t provide equity, so by definition most employees have taken jobs without equity. This isn’t a substitute to a salary, it’s additive.

I don’t think it’s necessarily an alternative to raises and bonuses, rather an additional avenue for compensation.

It certainly wouldn’t decrease productivity, given employees would still be able to get things like raises and bonuses. This leaves us at better or equal performance.

I understand the word, and I’ll forgive the rudeness. What would be a meaningful minimum to you?

I don’t understand your first point - it would have to be above 0% by definition.

I imagine a large percentage of people do want this, but may be uneducated on the idea of it, and purposefully kept that way by our existing employment structures.

This is in addition to salary.

Nobody said the mom and pop has to split half the profits, but they may be able to split a twentieth.

The employer does take on risk by starting a business, but I don’t think anyone would argue the employee should HAVE to take on that risk in return for a very small slice of the pie (even less than 1% in many cases).

You don’t have to provide 1% which is a pretty large amount, you could provide 0.1%, or lower. It will just be another competitive edge in recruiting, and employees will go where they feel most valued.

It may not be monetarily beneficial to the business owner in the short term, but the productivity of their business could soar, and their employees would likely be happier.

Yes, they get a guarenteed wage. No, they don’t have to pay in on a loss - that’s not how equity works.

As is the case with many existing equity structures, there are vesting benchmarks before their equity becomes valid - business owners could certainly continue to utilize vesting structures.

I’m not sure exactly how this relates specifically to felons.

I haven't necessarily determined if it should be legally enforced.

But at the very least, yes, it's the moral way a business should be run and I think it would be beneficial for everyone involved.

The ownership would be diluted, but you could set up your equity structure to a point where the owner will always control a certain amount, the employees will split another amount.

If you decide you want 99% and the remaining 1% will be split among the employees, they'll just decide to work somewhere else with better equity allowance.

At least you have that Quirion Beastcaller in your hand.

So cute that they copy mama one by one.

(and that dog is absolutely adorable)

True bravery. An inspiration to us all.