Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10800)	2/3/2006 5:25:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541582

On a very real and practicle level it leads to the totally artificial separation of those who have that undiminishing principal and those who have contributed another way. Those who contributed in another way got paid for their contribution. They might have gotten stock options or grants, but even if they got paid cash they could use it to buy stock. They only lose out on the possible ability to compound their gains indefinitely if they spend it instead of investing it. The investor looses out in the same way. If the stock owner sells his stock he stops getting a return from the stock investment. The stock buyer puts money in with the hope of getting more money later. That money is continually at risk. It might have grown from $1000 to $50000 but it could still go to zero. If he sells than most of his risk is gone (he only has risks of things like inflation, taxes, and theft), but so is all of his return (unless he places it in another investment and then you get risk again). The employee already received his compensation. That return on his labor is not at risk. (He could spend it all but he still had received the money, he could waste it all on a harebrained investment scheme but that would be a return of -100% on the investment not on his labor) The employee puts labor in and gets money now and can use that money to get whatever he wants including stock. If he wants company stock he gets it. If he wants other stock he gets it. If he doesn't want stock he doesn't. You would make him take company stock. That isn't a benefit to him. That is an inevitably unequal outcome regardless of the level of contribution or reward. And the person who bought a lottery ticket and won also had an reward that is very high for his effort or investment. I see no reason to try to mandate an equal outcome, in fact the attempt is generally disastrous, at least if it has a strong and wide spread effect (and if it doesn't than things aren't really changed much, you don't achieve your goal).