• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 years ago

    You seem to take a lot of things personally. I’m just stating simple facts here. I included correct information in the title, there is absolutely nothing misleading about it. I think your behavior here is deliberate trolling and I have a strong suspicion that you didn’t know the difference between average and median until now.

    • ree
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 years ago

      My first comment pointed out that an average like “$75k each” without distribution parameters is useless. You responded with a non-relevant paper.

      1. By including that average in your title you chose to represent that information in a specific way. That way is misleading.
      2. By citing a source with not relevance to the question you make it seems like there is support for your representation.

      What you’re doing is spreading missinformation.

      by the way :

      1. on the one hand you assume that people cannot divide number, on the other hand you assume that people knows the difference between median and average.
      2. an average is often used in the common language as a substitute for the geometric mean but also the median. Learn your stat : the meme is “mean and median”. I invite you to read the first § here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average . Or is wikipedia too biased for your taste?
      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 years ago

        I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from. The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.

        • ree
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 years ago

          I responded with a relevant paper that you literally quoted rough distributions from.

          The paper doesn’t provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.

          The fact that refusing to understand the difference between average and median is the hill you chose to die on is absolutely hilarious.

          Please read my last comment in his entirety.

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 years ago

            The paper doesn’t provide the shares distribution amongst the worker. It provides shares distribution amongst categories of worker.

            Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution.

            Please read my last comment in his entirety.

            Oh I did, it’s hilarious.

            • ree
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution. how so ?

              Oh I did, it’s hilarious.

              Glad you’re having fun, I have fun too.

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                3 years ago

                You have fun because you’re a troll who isn’t actually interested in facts. If you actually cared about whether Huawei is a real cooperative that has a fair distribution of shares then you would’ve spent time researching that instead of making an ass out of yourself in this thread. Since you claim the paper I linked is somehow inadequate, I’ll link another paper that does a detailed analysis of Huawei, not just in terms of share structure but also in terms of who actually owns it in practical terms

                https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=684088071004065000108104097080001109026012051033042091108125103074072029068074103121101122062000122051045126008098020072077071005049095084082028090122114021120108019019005046078001007013011118124066089108114093113029126081072090120093102087125085123065&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

                Another paper breaks down exactly how shares work under ESOP https://www.centeronbusinessandpoverty.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESOP-and-Effect-on-Productivity.pdf

                • ree
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  To summarize what you took the time to copy/paste :

                  • employees own the company
                  • one shares = one vote
                  • shares purchase has rules

                  What I’m interested in, and that I cannot find online is: “how are those shares distributed amongst employee”. I know, I sound like a broken record at this point, but so do you by missing my point entirely.

                  That question translate to : does 1 employees own 51% of the shares, does each employees own 0.0007% of shares or something in between.

                  Your title assumed an even distribution ( one employee has 0.0007% of the total shares) . Without more information that is completely misleading1

                  Do you understand my reasoning? Or am I trolling you too hard? I would be happy to go over some terms/sentences if they are not clear. Unfortunately I’m not an native english speaker and I sometime I communicate imperfectly.

                  1. yes the first document you linked refute the 1 persons own 51% of the shares. Nonetheless, that doesn’t invalidate a scenario where an organized minority owns 75% of the shares removing control of the company from the hands of the workers
                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    I understand the point you keep trying to make, but it’s pretty clear from the last chart I linked in the last comment that the distribution is fairly even. My title didn’t assume an even distribution, it assumes a fair distribution.

                    The two studies I linked very clearly indicate that the share distribution is a factor in employee engagement and motivation. If the share distribution was highly skewed then the shares wouldn’t play a factor in employee engagement.

                    The second study in particular compares Huawei with ZTE that has a traditional corporate structure. If your assertion was correct then we wouldn’t see the difference between the two.