This article is great -- I didn't know the back story behind the company, but a few things stand out.
- He changed careers pretty late in life. By his mid-40s, he was managing a J.C. Penney auto shop in Redding, Calif., when he wandered into a library and ran across a book called “John Goffe’s Mill,” by George Woodbury, which chronicled the author’s restoration of a run-down family flour mill
- He was religious, and not in a superficial way. Mr. Moore eventually began feeling the tug of a lifelong dream: to learn to read the Bible in its original languages, including Hebrew and Koine Greek
As a person who was raised without religion, I've been noticing that it can be a major reason why people make food of "irrational" quality.
What I've been seeing in every area of life, including software, is "optimization" of businesses by owners. It's been taken to new heights in the last 10-20 years by private equity.
They buy up working businesses and lower the quality to the amount that the market will bear, and pocket the difference.
It's apparently optimizing profits for the owners, but it's destroying economic value. Multiply that by M businesses in N different industries and you have a declining country.
So if you want to do something interesting and worth remembering, you need a better reason than being "rational". So kudos to Bob for this -- it seems like his life was its own reward.
So if you want to do something interesting and worth remembering, you need a better reason than being "rational". So kudos to Bob for this -- it seems like his life was its own reward.
You're going to need to define what 'rational' is. Optimizing a certain kind of metric beyond all reason is going to destroy whatever economic engine that is currently providing people their livelihood.
> Optimizing a certain kind of metric beyond all reason is going to destroy whatever economic engine that is currently providing people their livelihood.
I agree. The general trend of optimizing only for shareholder value has destroyed the livelihood of countless workers. Heck, it's destroyed legacy companies like kmart and sears. It's all but killed off manufacturing in the US. And, were the quality better, it'd kill off the jobs of most HN commenters as businesses would love nothing more than to offshore everything to the cheapest location possible.
The economy is a giant prisoner's dilemma. It'd be far healthier if wealth was better distributed yet individual companies and shareholders can make a boatload of money by taking shortcuts and keeping things running at barebones levels.
There's a certain emphasis, by people of a certain type of religiousness, on focusing heavily on the base needs of a person instead of "worldly" desires. I don't mean this in a condescending way, I'm having trouble expressing how it manifests. It's sort of a focus on the gifts God gave us and the way he wants us to live. I'm not religious btw, but I think I understand the mindset.
I don't think religiousness is a prerequisite or an indicator for the mindset of enjoying the simple things in life or quality craftsmanship. Perhaps religious people are more likely to use religion to rationalize these proclivities.
It sounds like by "base needs", you mean basic, or foundational needs. Like, making sure that people have food, water and shelter. Which makes sense, if the foundation is strong, you can build a lot on top of it.
It's quality in general. If you are building something for whatever god you happen to believe in, you are going to want to build something of high quality to honor that. Why make a shoddy sacrifice?
Keep in mind that I’m responding to people that are using the exact same directional logic, the only
difference is that their directional logic is pro-religion.
> If you are building something for whatever god you happen to believe in, you are going to want to build something of high quality to honor that.
That’s a very broad generalization and pro-religion statement. I provided a number of counter-examples of products whose religious ownership hasn’t motivated them to produce great quality products with ethical practices.
I would present the hypothesis that based on the demographics of US citizens that, statistically, most publicly traded companies are likely majority owned by Christian shareholders. After all, a commanding majority of Americans (70%). So this idea that a non-dollars-and-cents higher calling motivating Christian business owners to make better quality products seems like complete bunk.
Seems to me that the Christians get to cherry pick one company that focuses on product quality and give credit to religious thought despite the fact that most US companies including the shitty ones that dump toxic chemicals into rivers are also owned by Christians.
Friend, your comment made me laugh out loud. You know nothing about me and my religious/spiritual beliefs. I think you would be quite surprised if you knew what they were.
For what it's worth, I am not a Christian and I was not thinking of Christians or "Christian products" in my original comment you quoted.
I was just watching an old episode of Top Gear that had Steven Tyler as a guest. He mentioned a quote that his mom said, "The ark was made by amateurs while the Titanic was made by professionals". I found it amusing.
I have a friend who is Orthodox Christian and follows a very strict fasting schedule. I disagree with her about many things but I've always found her very thoughtful when it comes to her religion. She says she sees fasting not as a requirement from God but as a gift from God.
It is a opportunity to emphasize with those in poverty. It is a way to truly appreciate every meal - saying grace before a meal take on a real significance. And it is an opportunity to be truly thoughtful about the food you are putting into your body - particularly as the fasts are often "no meat" or something else specific.
She is also not surprisingly a very good cook and cooks most things from scratch. If she were to start a food company, I'm sure she'd use the same values.
I looked into one of those Trappist Abbey breweries way back. The monks appeared pretty well fed. Brewing is fun, but getting up at 5am and praying all day...
Fasting is less "do this for ritual purity" and more "this is an exercise for building self control" like weightlifting is an practice for building physical strength.
Some religious diets are perpetual, like "no pork ever". Orthodox fasting is "eat everything half of the year" and then practice self control by abstaining from the meat/wine/oil/dairy the other half.
I feel like the obvious thing to point out in this whole discussion is that this practice isn’t inherently religious at all. You can reap 100% of the benefits of fasting without the religion.
Many religious practices are borrowed from other religions or have some secular origin/reasoning. This is especially true for many of the food restrictions. Prior to germ theory, you ate something unclean and now God must be punishing you for it, etc.
"I think atheists actually empathize with the poor even more"
I think both this statement and the one you are responding to are getting to general/stereotypical. Fasting can be some meaningless ego/status religious thing. Just as some atheists might be more empathetic.
In my limited experience, the religious fasters seem mostly to be doing it because their community (church) does it and they want to belong, not for the exercise in self control or empathy. Although i msure both exist. It's also been my experience that atheists aren't any more empathetic towards the poor than the average person, religious or not.
I've been thinking about something like this recently. I was raised Catholic but have since become atheist. I've connected the health benefits of fasting and eating less red meat to some of the practices in Catholicism during lent. Personally, I find it hard to remember to try and do a fast or really build a long-term avoidance of red meat. So lately I've been thinking that while I may not believe in any gods, becoming "culturally Catholic" and re-adopting some of those practices could give me the structure I need to make some of those beneficial changes.
I would disagree. As a Christian who practices fasting, one of the purposes (probably the major one, in my opinion) of fasting is to focus oneself more on a relationship with God. I can see how there can be secular benefits to fasting, but I fail to see how athiests would reap this particular benefit.
That is mostly different but the nomenclature is confusing. The orthodox christian tradition of fasting is rarely ever strictly fasting in the medical sense. What they mean is voluntary abstinence from certain kinds of food on certain days, with the specifics varying by tradition & individual particulars.
Most lay orthodox christians only "truly" fast before taking communion and around a few particularly important holidays. So when they talk about fasting they are not normally talking about something that resembles intermittent fasting in practice.
Hm I'm glad this story made it to the top. I'll indulge this train of thought some more, since it's something I've been thinking about. (But still in honor of the person who this article is about)
Again, growing up without religion, I always wondered what the deal was with rules like "kosher" and "Halal". To me, it seemed like people were following old rules that didn't make sense in the modern world (though thankfully I never really voiced these opinions).
Now, you can argue about the details of these rules, but the point is that there actually have to be rules beyond "rationality", as I said.
---
The "rational" thing is to adulterate food, and this has been a big problem throughout history.
In Vienna, bakers caught selling underweight bread were put in the baeckerschupfen – a sort of cage which was then plunged into the river several times.
In Turkey, a bad baker was stretched out on his own kneading table and the bastinado (foot-beating with a stick) was administered.
Perhaps the most public and painful punishment was in ancient Egypt, were an offending baker could be nailed by the ear to the door of his shop, where no doubt his customers gave him even more abuse.
So the "rational" thing is to adulterate food, just like the "rational" thing is to spray ads all over web content, and add dark patterns to iOS apps. It makes money, in the short term.
But the cultures that survived and took over the world had rules beyond what's "rational". Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have extra rules you have to follow with regarding food. You don't really question why, but the act of compliance is a virtue.
So now I no longer think the arbitrary rules are so strange. You can argue with the details, the high level bit is that you don't just optimize for your own business. You have a higher duty.
---
If a society has 10,000 food producers, and all of them are doing the bare minumum, then eventually the health of the citizens is going to be the bare minimum too.
The neighboring clan with stricter rules - and yes MORALS - will overtake them.
---
And my point is that we're back in this situation NOW. Corporations have optimized the production of food for profit, while remaining technically legal.
i can't imagine many people would agree with how you're using the term "rational". short-term thinking is not an automatic outcome of rationality... you seem to be describing some of the negative effects of capitalism instead.
"Short-term" is also relative. Reading what the original author wrote, I interpreted it as them working backwards from the severe punishments for underweighting bread and what might cause them. Perhaps it's not the original baker underweighting bread, but their son or their grandson who doesn't have the right context for not doing so. Maybe they are trying to get more out of the family bakery, try something new, shake things up. It might be rational in the sense of game theory and the expected outcome of multiple generations of bakers. So over 100 years time you might find half your bakeries have reduced the size of their bread while the competing town has not and they overtake you.
Or maybe the town faces hard times and the baker might want to cut costs by reducing the weight of their bread to help their own family. That might be rational under those circumstances.
I mostly mean the common criticisms of Google for incentivizing web spam, and Facebook for pushing low quality / addictive / political content into people's feeds. (Though if you ask people outside the tech industry, they might not agree on these problems!)
The counterargument is that they both provide a ton of value, they didn't take anything away, and you don't have to use them. (defense of Google - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39054621 )
There's some truth to that, but it seems like we could be past peak social media (?) It feels like people are kinda treating it like smoking -- it was a poisonous fad that went too far, and it's wise to dial it back.
Greed and Corruption! And blame Milton Friedman for the corrupt economic philosophy. He foolishly believed and preached that shareholders would never act irrationally such that they would harm the company. Alan Greenspan believed that too but at least admitted that he was wrong, post 2008 bank meltdowns.
To some extent, I think that the problem comes down to communities. If you feel like your work is your contribution to your community, and especially to specific people, your goal isn't to make money. It's to contribute. You're incentivized to make good things that people like and help people. But when it's a massive crowd of people that you don't even know, ordering your stuff from afar because it's cheaper than whatever local source, you're not really of them. You have no responsibilities towards them. It makes sense that, as a society grows, it needs either stronger ways to tie people to each other (religion, nationalism, war), or some other form of control (laws, stamps, inspectors, baeckerschupfen).
The job of corporations is to optimize for profit.
The job of society is to set the rules within which they can do so.
Our ruleset is thousands of years old and is rooted in religion, myth, tradition, and millennia of practical compromises. The evolution of this ruleset should not be taken lightly, nor should old rules be discarded out of hand because they stem from now-unfashionable traditions.
This seems like a very cynical take of how private equity optimization works, it may be true in some instances, but it hardly universal as you seem to be implying. There is often a tremendous amount of low hanging fruit for businesses run by individuals that is easy to replicate across businesses and industries. Focus areas like implementing basic accounting and administrative systems are often at the core of optimizing a business when you do it professionally. These things almost always add value and are entirely rational from a market perspective.
> These things almost always add value and are entirely rational from a market perspective.
From the perspective of efficiency for the ownership, yes. However, every laid off staff member still needs to eat, house themselves, and pay their other bills.
It seems to me that the long run effect, apart from good or bad intent, is that the people in society who don't have access to capital wind up having to manage at a subsistence level.
Regardless of how you feel about Peter Thiel, everyone should read Zero to One. He eloquently ties together the concepts of entrepreneurialism and contrarianism
Real entrepreneurs only go into business because they believe they know something that otherwise efficient markets do not. So that means you have to be a contrarian and believe in secrets or undiscovered principles.
Some of the more interesting data points he includes is the decline in cult membership and belief in secrets. We as a society are generating less iconoclasts, so all that's left in business is an efficiency puzzle.
Cults and conspiracy thinking just went mainstream.
Back in the day, conspiracies were kind of unique and interesting and you could talk to a believer about it for hours about all the details and complications. People put a lot of thinking into it.
Today, conspiracies are like everything else - as shallow as the first page of google search.
maybe it's a commodities mindset? vs. other companies who do a Veblen good type of market targeting, i.e. the point where raising price and quality expands the market/market segment (i.e. LVMH, Hermes, to a certain point, Apple)
I have zero idea of what that would be like! But FWIW downweighting top comments that are generic tangents, or flamey, is probably the biggest thing we ever figured out about thread quality. I just wish it could be automated.
A great man, whose commitment to quality resulted in a great company with a sterling brand. His commitment to the employees that made it great was equally important as it's now (and has been for a bit) an employee-owned company and stands in obvious contrast to others who built up a known quality brand only to sell out to private equity. Rest in peace, Bob.
> Despite the company’s explosive growth, Mr. Moore fended off numerous offers by food giants to buy Bob’s Red Mill. He opted instead for an employee stock ownership plan, instituted in 2010, on his 81st birthday; by April 2020, the plan had put 100 percent of the company in the hands of its more than 700 employees.
Sounds like Bob Moore had some values most of us could admire.
Anyone know some of the pitfalls of an employee-owned company like that, and proven ways to avoid them?
(For a tech industry example, a large chunk of CraigsList got sold by a former employee to an overlapping large company, eBay.)
> Anyone know some of the pitfalls of an employee-owned company like that, and proven ways to avoid them?
I guess I can't think of any. Mostly seems to have a lot of upside. I interviewed recently at an employee owned tech company - a very rare bird indeed. It sounded like they did a lot of decision making collaboratively. While the position itself wasn't that interesting, the company structure and culture seemed quite attractive.
"Break shit fast" isn't universally accepted as a beneficial mindset for an organization as large as a country, despite having worked well for a scrappy startup that one time. One idiot can quickly and decisively wreck your entire economy with the stroke of a pen. A more intelligent dictator may simply bend the economy to his personal profits.
Idk dont know what it is about hackernews commenters that just feel compelled to post complete nonsequiters. none of this relates to my comment in any way.
The short answer is it depends on the company. Different companies have different governance models. Some allow former employees to retain interest, but then they can only sell to current employees, for example.
How about Richard D. Wolff, an economics professor with a relatively socialist area of study?
He has lots of material not just from his point of view but many guest interviews from many walks of life. Hosting his weekly 30-minute "current events" program, Economic Update, where all kinds of episodes are posted online, besides his lectures and books over the decades.
Here's a video lecture touching on worker coops and related theories that ended up being posted in a subreddit that is not specifically concerned with economics, socialism, nor coops:
Richard D. Wolff Lecture on Worker Coops; Theory and Practice of 21st Century Socialism:
Turns out there's been only one "parent" comment but it does say quite a bit in a much shorter time than it takes to listen to the entire lecture:
>POGO_POGO_POGO_POGO • 6y ago • Edited 6y ago
"Two problems I see with worker cooperatives:
If a capitalist enterprise were to be converted to a worker-owner enterprise, the workers would need to buy their "exploitation" up front (as that would be incorporated in the company price). This is a catch-22: they can either not buy the company and get exploited throughout their working life, or they can buy the present value of their exploitation up-front. This is much like telling a slave that they can buy their freedom, but the cost of their freedom is a full-life's worth of labour. (Obviously workers aren't "exploited" to the degree of a slave, but hopefully you get the picture.)
Instead of converting a capitalist enterprise to a worker cooperative, the enterprise could be a worker cooperative from the start - a worker cooperative start-up. The problem I see here is how many start-ups actually succeed? Not many. This means that the risk of funding start-ups is huge, and a huge risk needs a huge payoff when successful. E.g. suppose you are in the business of funding start-ups. If only one in ten start-ups succeed, then that one successful startup needs to return a lot to compensate for the other failed nine. The easiest way to achieve this return is simply if the party funding the start-up takes part-ownership. But that's against the principles of a worker-owned enterprise!
So it's hard to convert to a worker cooperative, and hard to start a worker cooperative. I don't see worker cooperatives taking off without some sort of government incentives (or "coersion" as libertarians would like to put it)."
I can't say I fully agree with Wolff or his detractors, but there's opinions I wouldn't want to be without when it comes to understanding a fuller economic picture,
In fact it's not a "known risk". It's an active area of research, with at least some findings contradicting your assumptions, e.g.:
> Our findings suggest that the traditional hold-up view whereby unions discourage innovation does not necessarily survive. When the voice effect is neither too strong nor too low, the unionized sector outperforms the market in terms of process innovation, while the effect on product innovation is strictly increasing in the voice power.
> Anyone know some of the pitfalls of an employee-owned company like that, and proven ways to avoid them?
The primary pitfall is that if you become successful, your investors don't get the returns they crave at the expense of those responsible for your success getting to live like serfs.
An ESOP is also a great way for a founder to exit the company in a tax-advantaged way. The stock that the employees receive also usually takes the place of alternative 401(k) investments they could be making. ESOPs are a very interesting tool but there are some real nightmare scenarios (owner liquidates via ESOP; company then fails; employees end up without jobs and without retirement savings.)
Another issue with ESOPs is that they are extremely expensive to administrate.
Good point. At least in the US right now -- where an S&P index tends to grow over time, and is vastly less risky than all eggs in one basket -- I guess an employee-owned company should emphasize also doing ordinary Bogle total-market retirement investing.
If participating in employee-ownership ends up at the cost of a retiree having sufficient retirement savings -- such as if the employee can't or doesn't build a solid 401(k) or IRA -- that indeed seems risky.
Another way to look at it would be the bottom of the S&P 500, which sits at around $12.5 billion. If there's 6533, their combined asset cap of $2 trillion puts them somewhere around $300 million or so per company, at least a factor of 30 below the S&P 500 bottom. There might be a few within the list that would be S&P 500, if they were public, since the list is likely to have a power law distribution.
It's an interesting thought, though. Effectively, assuming that the index were restricted to employees of member companies, setting up such a system would be tantamount to a corporate merger. In the event, if the failure of one member caused its employees to become ineligible to participate and thus autosell their shares, it could have a domino effect on other members. And if an outsider could hold shares in such an index, well, it's not really employee-owned anymore.
>Anyone know some of the pitfalls of an employee-owned company like that, and proven ways to avoid them?
I'd argue that when you look at companies with longevity they tend to be held closely, either by a family or within a coop style model. They also don't have to be small companies - look at places like Kiewit. As someone working to energize a small town economy, there's a lot to be said by exploring these cooperative models, given that PE / VC ain't likely to come to rural America anytime soon.
Limited liquidity- if you can only sell shares to employees, you have to find other employees to buy your shares who have the money to do so, and you may have to accept a much lower price than some one on the open market might pay.
Decision making- depending on the companies governance model, it may be hard to get everyone onboard to make large investments in new areas.
If the company/employees do make bad decisions, it can result in employees not just losing their jobs, but also a substantial portion of their saving, which may be tied up in the company. This is the same reason why the common advice is to not tie up too much of your savings in your companies own stock (see Enron employees, for example).
I am sure there are many more- but there are also a lot of advantages, as such, I am a big fan of both worker owned businesses and consumers cooperatives. I wish both were far more common.
> if you can only sell shares to employees, you have to find other employees to buy your shares who have the money to do so, and you may have to accept a much lower price than some one on the open market might pay.
If you can only sell to fellow employees, that's priced in to the value of the stock. There is no open market price, so it can't really be higher or lower except hypothetically.
This isn't a nitpick, it means that the price you get for the stock is more based on the dividends it bears, since market speculation plays no role. I don't think it's legal to force people to sell stock when they're no longer associated with a company, so "employee and former employee owned" is probably more accurate.
If the company is not publically traded, then Capital value more or less disappears (can be assumed to be 0).
Income value is almost always the primary use-case for this kind of share.
Usually "employee held shares" have limited or restricted voting rights. (An extreme short-term position might be "liquidate the business and divide the spoils", which might be popular if the majority is nearing retirement, but is clearly not good for business survival.)
These shares should in no way ever be considered as part of your retirement plan. Period.
The pitfall is that in case of significant changes to the industry it may become politically impossible to make certain unpleasant decisions - e.g. if the industry gets a new option for automation which enables reducing costs through laying off half the employees, then it could be the case that the employee-owned company refuses to do that while their competitors do, and then some time goes out of business as it's costs are uncompetitive, and then have to lay off everyone because they could not make a timely decision to lay off half of them. But that's a hypothetical scenario which is not that common (but high stakes).
Sorry to hear this, but congrats to Bob for a life well lived and building a brand that made quality products. We have their muesli multiple times a week, their farro as well, and this morning our kids loved Valentine's Day pancakes made from their mix. Thanks Bob
"What made you want to switch to the employee-owned model?"
"I came up here to study the Bible, and the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And so there’s an element of how you treat people that impressed me. And sharing in the profit, sharing in the company to make things more fair and more benevolent impressed me, and I felt strongly about it."
> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a Danish person, in reference to their welfare system: "some call it socialism - in Denmark we call it Christianity."
It seems likely that Socialism would not exist without Christianity. We know that the early Christians were essentially communist - they owned everything in common. Christianity taught that wealth should not be hoarded but used to improve people's lives in community. That every person is created in the image of God and thus has value no matter what they can (or cannot) do - meaning that disabled and old people had just as much right to live as anyone else.
Now the dominant American expression of Christianity (Evangelicalism) teaches that socialism is some kind of evil and has politically aligned itself with the owner class.
That’s because it got wrapped up in right wing politics. It used to be evangelicals were equally likely from both parties. Then Regan courted them and the rest is history.
Way earlier than that - once Constantine claimed to have seen a cross and heard God saying "In hoc signo vinces" (Under this sign you will conquer), Christianity was forever connected with Empire.
> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.
The parable of the three talents is pretty instructive. It is considered a good work to run a business and employ people, to put them to useful work, and to pay them a fair wage so that they may raise a family.
"Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Luke 18:8-18:30
The biblical writers could not have been more clear on this topic. Prosperity theology is heresy.
Is Jesus saying earning money is bad or that hoarding it is bad? If you earn a lot of money and give to charity, take care of your community, and spend it for the betterment of your neighbors does this make it hard to get into heaven?
Individual behavior notwithstanding, prosperity theology is exactly about hoarding wealth [1]:
> When deconstructed, there is a great deal in the doctrines and practices of the movement, which concurs with Wade Clark Roof’s view that North American ‘supply-side spirituality’ has always carried the assumption that the individual is entitled to an endless supply of material satisfactions.
What largesse its individual adherents may - and, under their own rule, may not! - distribute, detracts nothing from the school's focus on worldly acquisitiveness.
The state of their souls is a matter between them and what they worship. Having had firsthand opportunity to observe their behavior as well as their teaching, I have not in either sense seen them particularly interested in following the examples Christ gave and set.
What they are doing is attempting to collapse the parable, and have the riches of heaven while they live on earth. If there is a hell, this will land them there.
I'm not defending the prosperity "theology" in any way, which is why I said He speaks in parables, as evil people always hear what they want to hear anyways, and reveal themselves in doing so.
The prosperity defense of the parable is that it was actually referencing a specific gate in Jerusalem that was very narrow and hard to get a camel through, so you had to unload your camel and get it to kneel through the gate. So you just have to be "humble."
That may be optimistic, because exactly like Scientology they prey upon the desperate. I knew them a long time ago; there are many more people now in such a state.
They further indict themselves in so doing, of course: 'As you do to the least of these...' But they still do it.
I don't wish to seem as if I seek an argument with you, and I also do not wish them to have the privilege of ever claiming they did it all unawares.
While we think of "rich" as a quantity, I think in the parable "rich" refers to a state of mind.
In the parable (the parable of the "rich young ruler") it is the "love of money" which is the fundamental issue, not the quantity of it.
Some people are able to attract large quantities of money, yet are able to flow that money to others well. Others have much less, but their love of money leads to exploitation, hoarding, jealousy, covetousness, selfishness and so on.
The "love of money" is in many ways the antithesis of Christian theology. Which is why the parable explains how it's a fundamental stumbling block - what we'd call a deal-breaker.
American Christians are unfortunate to live in a secular culture which values money over everything else, and this has permeated into the church culture. One need look no further than the political support, by professing Christians, to a "rich man" rather than to a "Godly man" within their own party.
The "love of money" is the root of all evil, not the money itself.
> It is considered a good work to run a business and employ people, to put them to useful work, and to pay them a fair wage so that they may raise a family.
Unfortunately that parable is about slaves, unfair retribution, and "But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.". Maybe means something entirely different in the Talmud.
I don't go to church, but I went to a wealthy demographic service to help a friend and that parable was mentioned - weird money-oriented Anglican service.
To me, it's a allegory for the soul. The talent is the soul. The gift given to you by God. The servants all started with the same gift. Some servants used that gift to lift up the other souls around them, presumably out of despair and into the light. The other decided that he should hide his gift and only think for himself.
It's God's commandment to put your life to the purpose of bettering others. Merely showing up to Heaven with only your own soul to account for is not what he wants.
The earliest corporations were created by monasteries as a way of pooling collective resources without requiring heredity bonds or government enforcement.
Fast forward to the enlightenment and new understanding of universal human rights implies that all people (not just monarchs) should have rights to property including ownership stakes of enterprises. And that the actions of enterprises should be overseen by boards.
Our modern idea that prices should be publicly posted and fair, and that losses should be born by businesses was created out of Quaker practices of equality.
> "The Pennsylvania Quakers" "honest price" was institutionalized in 1874 by John Wanamaker, when he opened his eponymous department store in Philadelphia. A renowned innovator of the highest integrity, Wanamaker was the first retailer to offer money-back guarantees. He also invented the price tag: "A devout Christian, he believed that if everyone was equal before God, then everyone should be equal before price." Before Wanamaker's, every purchase was open to a haggle."
> It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.
Indeed. There are many different Christian views on capitalism ranging from being outright anti-capitalism to the prosperity gospel which encourages it's adherents to get rich (and views riches as a sign of God's blessing - this is why that particular group could overlook so much of Trump's seemingly unchristian actions and values - they figured he's rich so he must be blessed by God).
Bob's Christian philosophy seems to have been somewhere between those two extremes. He definitely didn't view wealth as something to be hoarded, he used it to help lift up his workers and his community.
Catholic doctrine on the issue sounds pretty close to Bob's - see Rerum Novarum [1], Quadragesimo Anno [2], Populorum Progressio [3], Centesimus Annus [4], Caritas in Veritate [5], and Fratelli Tutti [6] for various expressions of the doctrine over the modern era.
He also essentially gave his business to his employees. He was known in the community (I live in the area) as being a very generous person and all around mensch.
can you explain what exactly you mean by "mensch" or which character traits are being associated with it?
as a non-native english speaker i have never seen it used and just know it as the german word for "human"
Worth noting that "the man" may instead mean police/government/etc, usually with negative connotations. So context may make this less appropriate as a synonym than "righteous dude" as mentioned above.
It does not connote those extra attributes. It means someone with integrity and honor, who always does the right thing. A mensch is someone you can count on. It is a very high compliment to give someone. But I've definitely known some disagreeable mensches.
The German word for man is der Mann. Der Mensch is a human/person. And yes, in Yiddish it has strong positive connotations, which have carried over into the (American, at least) loanword.
yeah person is more accurate. I wonder what the etymology of Mensch is, Lohnwort from Latin, long evolved, like Muenze? Umlaut applied to a derivative of Mann with an i involved, also long enough evolved the spelling simplified?
I no longer have my German language dictionary(-ies) or Duden books nor access to such where I am, sadly.
Ability to vote on how the business operates and things like compensation and benefits. Different employee owned businesses are governed differently, but in general, the employees have more control.
I elaborated in a sibling comment, but this is just not necessarily true. Both employee owned companies I've worked for were effectively dictatorships where employees got exactly zero say in anything.
Employee-owned just means that employees are the shareholders.
I work for a 100% ESOP and the only things we are able to vote on are mergers, ownership structure changes, liquidation, and dissolution. There are no other voting rights or board member nominations/votes.
think of how shareholders drive a company's behavior, and how much of most public corporations bad behavior is generating dividends or increased share price for large institutional shareholders, because the leadership (board) is voted for by those same shareholders
now imagine if a company's only shareholders are the employees who work there. how much different would a company act if the people to whom the leadership are responsible are the employees themselves?
All of this is true, and on top of that, at least in the case of ESOP plans like the one at Bob's Red Mill, the outstanding stock of the company is held in a trust and distributed to employees as part of a benefits package over time, sort of like a 401k they don't have to pay anything to contribute to.
Employees have a say in the direction of the company. It depends on the bylaws, but employees will vote on certain things. There's a lot of talking it up here, but it can also suck. I worked for one that was very blue collar as a systems engineer and watched as our IT infrastructure decayed and our contractual promises would not be met because employees voted for bonuses rather than refreshed infrastructure.
With any sufficiently large group there will be a variety of opinions when making any decision.
Voting is one way to get a majority opinion, but of course that doesn't make it right. Since everyone is in a different place in life what may be good for one (maximising income before retirement) may conflict with another (ensuring job stability and sustainability for the next 20 years.)
This is all true regardless of the decision making group - board of directors, c-suite, or employees.
So sure, some employee groups would make decisions not aligned with my goals. But equally other decision making groups do that all the time too.
This is a hard problem because, as a decision group you "can't make everyone happy." So it helps if the employee group are mostly on the same goals page, and if there are leaders who understand the decisions in terms of the agreed goals.
Meaning, that regardless of profit share, its a good thing if you work at a place where your goals, and the leadership goals are aligned.
>Employees have a say in the direction of the company. It depends on the bylaws, but employees will vote on certain things.
No, this is not necessarily true - what you're describing is more akin to a co-op, not an employee owned company.
An employee owned company just means there is an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan). So employees own some or all of the company's stock. That's it, it's an ownership structure, not a management structure. It says absolutely nothing about day-to-day operations or how decisions are made. The vast majority of employee owned companies are still run like a dictatorship.
Source: I've worked for multiple employees owned companies. Both were effectively dictatorships. Literally zero voting whatsoever.
It was maybe a bit of both based on the corporate bylaws, but it was and is an employee owned company. What I described (bonuses over reinvestment) is a decision shareholders (employees) get to make.
>What I described (bonuses over reinvestment) is a decision shareholders (employees) get to make.
Sure, My only point is there's nothing about being employee-owned that requires or even encourages allowing employees to vote on how money is spent, or anything at all for that matter. A privately owned company is just as likely to consider input from employees as an employee-owned company is.
Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
> A privately owned company is just as likely to consider input from employees as an employee-owned company is.
> Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
If there was 100% (or majority) employee ownership, would the employees not have the ability to use the general meeting process to eject board members they didn’t like? Aren’t employees voting for nominees to the board, allowing them to use a write-in process to bypass a hostile board?
> there's nothing about being employee-owned that requires or even encourages allowing employees to vote on how money is spent, or anything at all for that matter.
I.R.C. § 409(e) requires voting rights for the employee shareholders in an ESOP on certain matters, so your “anything at all” is not true.
It is true that there is no single definition of "employee owned". However, in most contexts having a small monority of company stock owned by employees doesn't really count, if only a small percent of the company is actually owned by the employees.
I understood the context of the question to be cases where employees own the majority of the company. Maybe that is not what the questioner was meaning though.
I'm speaking of 100% employee-owned companies here. That's my experience.
In general, once a company established an ESOP[1], they eventually become 100% employee-owned. Usually when an owner establishes and ESOP that's the end goal.
It just takes many years to get to 100% because the company has to purchase shares from the owner and distribute them to the employees. It's not something that can happen overnight because the company has to fund those share purchases. Yes, the owner is paid, they don't actually "give away" the company.
[1] I should mention, in case it's not clear, that ESOP is not a general concept - it's a specific type of retirement plan in US law that's got a bunch of requirements associated with it.
>An ESOP is also a flexible, tax-advantaged business transition and corporate finance tool that enables stakeholders in closely held companies to access their equity without giving up management control of the company, which enables an owner to carefully plan leadership succession and a smooth transition
Some of the US based companies in this list have something to do with tech and exist for quite some time. Interesting how these are run (i mean they would probably have closed shop if they were to hand out bonuses instead of investing)
/i am just asking, as I don't know much about the subject/
It gives employees a path to benefit from their labor directly rather than capitalized investors who aren't actually doing the work.
Normally companies seek to find the balance of "saving money" by paying lower wages that are just enough to entice mostly productive employees, and profiting from the employees labor.
To put it in the terms of Marx, the burgeouise pocketing the difference between the cost of their employees' labor and the value extracted from it is "surplus value", and is a manifestation of class warfare in capitalism that harms the working class. See also, "rent-seeking"
I don't mean to cast aspersions at Bob or his company, but articles frequently suggest that Bob gave his company away and that's simply inaccurate.
That's not what happens in an ESOP.
What does happen is that (as an account specializing in ESOPs explained it to me) owners sell their companies to employees at "the most boring accounting valuation available."
This does mean that the owners are often leaving significant money on the table. A competitor or investment group might be willing to offer a multiple of that "boring accounting valuation" in order to realize future growth, or recognize the value of eliminating a competitor or keep another company from getting a competitor.
But it's typically far from nothing.
The reason I suspect that Bob's ESOP transaction happened in stages over a 10-year period (from 2010 to 2020) was that companies don't typically have the cash-on-hand to buy out an owner all in one go, even at that lower "boring accounting" valuation.
Don't get me wrong. I think ESOPs are a great tool and should be used more often. I've had the chance to work with several ESOPs, and companies going from family-ownership to ESOP ownership. Employees really do behave differently when they "own" the company and have a direct stake in its future, and ESOPs provide stability and "employee first" thinking that corporate ownership and investment groups simply won't.
Bob absolutely did the right thing and should be commended for it. But it's helpful to accurately understand what actually happens in an ESOP transaction as well.
I won't argue that gifting the company would be innately bad. However, I don't think selling it to the workers is bad either.
I don't agree with the "founders take all" model where risk and initial investment trump all future efforts and contributions. At the same time, there are merits to creating, managing, and sustaining a company which deserves some reward. Selling the company to workers over 10 years at a price they can feasibly afford while still earning good salaries and maintaining good finances seems kind of perfect to me.
I don't know the specifics; perhaps the company had to go into debt and the acquisition was a precarious thing. Regardless, it seems to me that a scenario where the sale is fair to both parties in this way seems ideal. The founder/owner is compensated reasonably and the workers gain agency and control over the capitalization of their own labour.
That's only to say I don't think it would need to be a gift to the workers to still be a virtuous or good thing to do. If it was a gift, great, that's nice that the owner can afford this and the workers get an incredible windfall they can all share in. It doesn't seem innately good because it's a gift, though.
I met him at a factory tour that we did outside of Portland. He was so humble and just seemed like a lovely human. A highlight that brings me joy every time I eat his museli for breakfast (70g museli, 70g frozen blueberries, 170g whole milk yogurt)
I love that the company is employee-owned, and he just seems like an overall inspiration in many ways.
Different poster, but I have a kinda-similar breakfast. I put the frozen blueberries in a bowl in the fridge the night before to thaw, or if I forget to do that just microwave them for 30s.
I bought a chest freezer mainly to accommodate the 20lbs of wild blueberries I freeze each summer. A cup of bloobs with a little granola on top is my daily breakfast. The berries freeze the milk and result in a delicious slush.
Oddly the rest of my family prefers other things so I eat them all myself.
I play a survival game called Valheim, and you can find patches of blueberries to harvest. Whenever I do, I label them 'bloobs' on the map. It's a fantastic shorthand.
Great to see Bob make the front page of HN. I live in the metro area where Bob's Red Mill is located. He was known to be very generous to many local causes including OHSU (Oregon Health Sciences University) and was an all around mensch. Passing the company on to it's employees was such a generous move as well.
Bob is a great example of living in such a way that you get a great eulogy after you die instead of living in such a way as to accumulate as much as possible.
I often feel frustrated by the community here but having this story be at the top of HN gives me so much hope for my little sheltered world. Kudos to Bob, and kudos to all the people of HN.
Bob Moore was one of my friend's neighbors. Bob's home was a simple residence nothing fancy, big or flashy. Just blended right into the neighborhood. The quality of Bob's Redmill products has always been great.
Bob turned the business over to the workers. It is worker owned. Isn’t this what Marx was talking about, aka a Soviet? Or am I wildly misunderstanding economic philosophy. I’m not trolling HN here, but I just have two trump loving parents who adore Bobs decision to make it worker owned and I’d like to gotcha them next thanksgiving ;)
Here's their statement on being employee owned for the mute downvoters:
1. Owner[s] sell their stock to the company
(note the company needs to be fairly successful to have the cash to buy the shares. Sometimes it's bought all at once, but often on some sort of multi-year payment plan. Bob's Red Mill took approx. 10 years to buy out Bob and his partners.)
2. The company puts the stock into a trust held for the benefit of employees.
3. A portion of shares may be immediately distributed to employees based on key status, years of service, etc.
4. The shares are used as part of benefit packages. It's sort of like a 401k that the employees don't actually have to pay anything to participate in. The longer you're there, and the more important your role (generally), the more you end up owning, and it's generally treated like employer 401k matches in terms of income tax.
Usually after you reach a certain threshold, you're allowed to sell your shares to others or back to the company in order to diversify.
A soviet is a governing workers' council made up of workers from various local shop floors. A worker owned co-op under capitalism is still capitalist, although theoretically less exploitative. It is not necessarily Marxist and definitely not a soviet.
Marx was talking about no ownership at all of any means of production -- i.e. all means of production are owned by the "collective".
It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it's only ever resulted in destroyed livelihoods, unmotivated workers, and unfed millions (except when the USSR invaded Ukraine in the early 1930s to steal their grain to feed their own people).
I feel sure that HN had a thread or two about him over the years, most probably about how he turned his company over to the employees. But I couldn't find one. Anybody?
Lots of comments mentions (I've set the cut-off to 6 Feb 2024 to exclude obits), several of which seem to be part of longer threads (e.g., decline of breakfast cereal discussion a few months back):
I just ate a bowl of Bob's steel cut oats this morning. They're the best in the business. The flours that Bob's Red Mill produces are top quality and of a purity hard matched by others. I admire his dedication to producing a first-rate product and for his forethought to establish an ESOP for the people actually producing it.
As someone who recently developed food sensitivities and can't eat much of anything (elimination diet), I'm thankful so many companies exist in recent years that have gluten/soy/dairy/peanut/tree nut free products. Food allergies really suck. I've started eating a lot of oatmeal and Bob's stuff is great. I also have to practically cook everything to ensure I'm not getting soy and other stuff.
Bob's Red Mill steel cut oats is fantastic. In recent years I've been making it as a savory, not sweet, breakfast - topped with grass-fed butter, a fried egg, and some thyme from our garden, sea salt, and black pepper. Energy for hours!
I was going there during the recession years, and during those years when the schools were struggling hard with funding, Bobs Red Mill sent out huge amounts of flower, vegan cheese, and other extra food they had to our culinary program.
I have always loved that brand as a result, and have never declined the opportunity to buy from them. Their restaurant within their local store is also quite decent for what it is.
307 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 300 ms ] threadBreakfast cereal is in long-term decline (wsj.com) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37540770
This article is great -- I didn't know the back story behind the company, but a few things stand out.
- He changed careers pretty late in life. By his mid-40s, he was managing a J.C. Penney auto shop in Redding, Calif., when he wandered into a library and ran across a book called “John Goffe’s Mill,” by George Woodbury, which chronicled the author’s restoration of a run-down family flour mill
- He was religious, and not in a superficial way. Mr. Moore eventually began feeling the tug of a lifelong dream: to learn to read the Bible in its original languages, including Hebrew and Koine Greek
As a person who was raised without religion, I've been noticing that it can be a major reason why people make food of "irrational" quality.
What I've been seeing in every area of life, including software, is "optimization" of businesses by owners. It's been taken to new heights in the last 10-20 years by private equity.
They buy up working businesses and lower the quality to the amount that the market will bear, and pocket the difference.
It's apparently optimizing profits for the owners, but it's destroying economic value. Multiply that by M businesses in N different industries and you have a declining country.
So if you want to do something interesting and worth remembering, you need a better reason than being "rational". So kudos to Bob for this -- it seems like his life was its own reward.
You're going to need to define what 'rational' is. Optimizing a certain kind of metric beyond all reason is going to destroy whatever economic engine that is currently providing people their livelihood.
I agree. The general trend of optimizing only for shareholder value has destroyed the livelihood of countless workers. Heck, it's destroyed legacy companies like kmart and sears. It's all but killed off manufacturing in the US. And, were the quality better, it'd kill off the jobs of most HN commenters as businesses would love nothing more than to offshore everything to the cheapest location possible.
The economy is a giant prisoner's dilemma. It'd be far healthier if wealth was better distributed yet individual companies and shareholders can make a boatload of money by taking shortcuts and keeping things running at barebones levels.
I don’t follow, can you explain how religiosity relates to food quality?
There's something about simple design that you can appreciate without being in any way religious. Christopher Alexander tries to get at it.
That said, I also admire the Quakers for their values.
I don’t recall chick-fil-a sandwiches being offerings to god, I’m pretty sure they’re sold to consumers.
This theory also doesn’t really explain why a lot of Christian products are very low quality.
The eggs at Aldi with the Bible verses are downright terrible compared to a pasture raised product from a brand like Vital Farms.
MyPillow pillows are bottom of the barrel.
Tyson Foods is certainly not known for quality.
Saying "some people associate quality workmanship with their belief in God" doesn't mean:
1. all religious folks care about quality workmanship
2. all people who care about quality workmanship are religious
They’re giving religion way more credit than it’s due.
Food quality, perhaps. But art, music, architecture, definitely.
Not all religious people do great things, not all great things are done for religious reasons.
Your logic directionality is failing you badly here.
It is possible to say nice things about someone without implying condemnation of another.
> If you are building something for whatever god you happen to believe in, you are going to want to build something of high quality to honor that.
That’s a very broad generalization and pro-religion statement. I provided a number of counter-examples of products whose religious ownership hasn’t motivated them to produce great quality products with ethical practices.
I would present the hypothesis that based on the demographics of US citizens that, statistically, most publicly traded companies are likely majority owned by Christian shareholders. After all, a commanding majority of Americans (70%). So this idea that a non-dollars-and-cents higher calling motivating Christian business owners to make better quality products seems like complete bunk.
Seems to me that the Christians get to cherry pick one company that focuses on product quality and give credit to religious thought despite the fact that most US companies including the shitty ones that dump toxic chemicals into rivers are also owned by Christians.
For what it's worth, I am not a Christian and I was not thinking of Christians or "Christian products" in my original comment you quoted.
It is a opportunity to emphasize with those in poverty. It is a way to truly appreciate every meal - saying grace before a meal take on a real significance. And it is an opportunity to be truly thoughtful about the food you are putting into your body - particularly as the fasts are often "no meat" or something else specific.
She is also not surprisingly a very good cook and cooks most things from scratch. If she were to start a food company, I'm sure she'd use the same values.
It's hard to be in prayer all day. If you're hungry however, you are perpetually reminded and thinking of God.
You are not supposed to go hungry, just be strict on what you consume.
Some religious diets are perpetual, like "no pork ever". Orthodox fasting is "eat everything half of the year" and then practice self control by abstaining from the meat/wine/oil/dairy the other half.
"I think atheists actually empathize with the poor even more"
I think both this statement and the one you are responding to are getting to general/stereotypical. Fasting can be some meaningless ego/status religious thing. Just as some atheists might be more empathetic.
In my limited experience, the religious fasters seem mostly to be doing it because their community (church) does it and they want to belong, not for the exercise in self control or empathy. Although i msure both exist. It's also been my experience that atheists aren't any more empathetic towards the poor than the average person, religious or not.
Most lay orthodox christians only "truly" fast before taking communion and around a few particularly important holidays. So when they talk about fasting they are not normally talking about something that resembles intermittent fasting in practice.
Again, growing up without religion, I always wondered what the deal was with rules like "kosher" and "Halal". To me, it seemed like people were following old rules that didn't make sense in the modern world (though thankfully I never really voiced these opinions).
Now, you can argue about the details of these rules, but the point is that there actually have to be rules beyond "rationality", as I said.
---
The "rational" thing is to adulterate food, and this has been a big problem throughout history.
For example, here's a picture of stamped bread from the first century AD in Pompeii - https://ridiculouslyinteresting.com/2013/07/22/preserved-loa...
The stamp apparently being required to identify the baker in case of fraud.
One way you can get a sense of the incentive to adulterate food is to look at all the colorful punishments for doing so - http://www.theoldfoodie.com/2011/09/bakers-dozen.html
In Vienna, bakers caught selling underweight bread were put in the baeckerschupfen – a sort of cage which was then plunged into the river several times.
In Turkey, a bad baker was stretched out on his own kneading table and the bastinado (foot-beating with a stick) was administered.
Perhaps the most public and painful punishment was in ancient Egypt, were an offending baker could be nailed by the ear to the door of his shop, where no doubt his customers gave him even more abuse.
More - https://musingsonfoodhistory.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/death-...
A law in Britain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_of_Bread_Act_1757
---
So the "rational" thing is to adulterate food, just like the "rational" thing is to spray ads all over web content, and add dark patterns to iOS apps. It makes money, in the short term.
But the cultures that survived and took over the world had rules beyond what's "rational". Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have extra rules you have to follow with regarding food. You don't really question why, but the act of compliance is a virtue.
So now I no longer think the arbitrary rules are so strange. You can argue with the details, the high level bit is that you don't just optimize for your own business. You have a higher duty.
---
If a society has 10,000 food producers, and all of them are doing the bare minumum, then eventually the health of the citizens is going to be the bare minimum too.
The neighboring clan with stricter rules - and yes MORALS - will overtake them.
---
And my point is that we're back in this situation NOW. Corporations have optimized the production of food for profit, while remaining technically legal.
America’s packaged food supply is ultra-processed - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20551847 - https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/07/us-packaged-fo...
America exported this problem to countries like Brazil, which ...
Or maybe the town faces hard times and the baker might want to cut costs by reducing the weight of their bread to help their own family. That might be rational under those circumstances.
> In tech, we have poisoned our own information supply
Curious to know more about what you mean by this, if you have the time... poisoned how? cheers!
The counterargument is that they both provide a ton of value, they didn't take anything away, and you don't have to use them. (defense of Google - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39054621 )
There's some truth to that, but it seems like we could be past peak social media (?) It feels like people are kinda treating it like smoking -- it was a poisonous fad that went too far, and it's wise to dial it back.
The job of society is to set the rules within which they can do so.
Our ruleset is thousands of years old and is rooted in religion, myth, tradition, and millennia of practical compromises. The evolution of this ruleset should not be taken lightly, nor should old rules be discarded out of hand because they stem from now-unfashionable traditions.
From the perspective of efficiency for the ownership, yes. However, every laid off staff member still needs to eat, house themselves, and pay their other bills.
It seems to me that the long run effect, apart from good or bad intent, is that the people in society who don't have access to capital wind up having to manage at a subsistence level.
Real entrepreneurs only go into business because they believe they know something that otherwise efficient markets do not. So that means you have to be a contrarian and believe in secrets or undiscovered principles.
Some of the more interesting data points he includes is the decline in cult membership and belief in secrets. We as a society are generating less iconoclasts, so all that's left in business is an efficiency puzzle.
Another funny thing is to learn about "principles" of Ray Dalio. Man has a cult but tries to proof otherwise.
Back in the day, conspiracies were kind of unique and interesting and you could talk to a believer about it for hours about all the details and complications. People put a lot of thinking into it.
Today, conspiracies are like everything else - as shallow as the first page of google search.
Was that written before QAnon, etc.?
1. Max profit for a small group of shareholders
2. A cool place to work with people you like.
Try explaining #2 to a PE group.
[edit: typos]
I am top mod on a few large ("top 1% by size") subreddits and am always interested in those sorts of perspectives.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240214160536/https://www.nytim...
Sounds like Bob Moore had some values most of us could admire.
Anyone know some of the pitfalls of an employee-owned company like that, and proven ways to avoid them?
(For a tech industry example, a large chunk of CraigsList got sold by a former employee to an overlapping large company, eBay.)
I guess I can't think of any. Mostly seems to have a lot of upside. I interviewed recently at an employee owned tech company - a very rare bird indeed. It sounded like they did a lot of decision making collaboratively. While the position itself wasn't that interesting, the company structure and culture seemed quite attractive.
What happens if there is an underperforming worker? What happens with their ownership
What if you want to divest?
Not sure on any of the above, if anyone knows would love to hear the answers
(Before I get downvoted, I'm not saying unions are evil, and that this always happens, just that it's a known risk)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4840766_Unions_and_...
He has lots of material not just from his point of view but many guest interviews from many walks of life. Hosting his weekly 30-minute "current events" program, Economic Update, where all kinds of episodes are posted online, besides his lectures and books over the decades.
Here's a video lecture touching on worker coops and related theories that ended up being posted in a subreddit that is not specifically concerned with economics, socialism, nor coops:
Richard D. Wolff Lecture on Worker Coops; Theory and Practice of 21st Century Socialism:
https://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/comments/8ypnl3/richard_d_...
Turns out there's been only one "parent" comment but it does say quite a bit in a much shorter time than it takes to listen to the entire lecture:
>POGO_POGO_POGO_POGO • 6y ago • Edited 6y ago
"Two problems I see with worker cooperatives:
So it's hard to convert to a worker cooperative, and hard to start a worker cooperative. I don't see worker cooperatives taking off without some sort of government incentives (or "coersion" as libertarians would like to put it)."I can't say I fully agree with Wolff or his detractors, but there's opinions I wouldn't want to be without when it comes to understanding a fuller economic picture,
> Our findings suggest that the traditional hold-up view whereby unions discourage innovation does not necessarily survive. When the voice effect is neither too strong nor too low, the unionized sector outperforms the market in terms of process innovation, while the effect on product innovation is strictly increasing in the voice power.
https://docs.iza.org/dp14102.pdf
The primary pitfall is that if you become successful, your investors don't get the returns they crave at the expense of those responsible for your success getting to live like serfs.
Another issue with ESOPs is that they are extremely expensive to administrate.
EDIT: this is a succinct and reasonable summary of some of the risks of an ESOP (primarily from an employee's perspective) https://pensionrights.org/resource/problems-with-esops/
If participating in employee-ownership ends up at the cost of a retiree having sufficient retirement savings -- such as if the employee can't or doesn't build a solid 401(k) or IRA -- that indeed seems risky.
DOL posts Form 5500 filings but they lag by 2-3 years: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/pla...
As of 2021 they listed 6,533 ESOP filings at a combined asset cap of about $2T. For context Apple's market cap just passed $3T in December.
Any mechanism which facilitates outside ownership erodes the effect of being ESOP.
It's an interesting thought, though. Effectively, assuming that the index were restricted to employees of member companies, setting up such a system would be tantamount to a corporate merger. In the event, if the failure of one member caused its employees to become ineligible to participate and thus autosell their shares, it could have a domino effect on other members. And if an outsider could hold shares in such an index, well, it's not really employee-owned anymore.
But I did find this: https://www.mnceo.org
Which looks pretty impressive. I wonder how many states have something like this.
I'd argue that when you look at companies with longevity they tend to be held closely, either by a family or within a coop style model. They also don't have to be small companies - look at places like Kiewit. As someone working to energize a small town economy, there's a lot to be said by exploring these cooperative models, given that PE / VC ain't likely to come to rural America anytime soon.
Decision making- depending on the companies governance model, it may be hard to get everyone onboard to make large investments in new areas.
If the company/employees do make bad decisions, it can result in employees not just losing their jobs, but also a substantial portion of their saving, which may be tied up in the company. This is the same reason why the common advice is to not tie up too much of your savings in your companies own stock (see Enron employees, for example).
I am sure there are many more- but there are also a lot of advantages, as such, I am a big fan of both worker owned businesses and consumers cooperatives. I wish both were far more common.
If you can only sell to fellow employees, that's priced in to the value of the stock. There is no open market price, so it can't really be higher or lower except hypothetically.
This isn't a nitpick, it means that the price you get for the stock is more based on the dividends it bears, since market speculation plays no role. I don't think it's legal to force people to sell stock when they're no longer associated with a company, so "employee and former employee owned" is probably more accurate.
A) tradeable on a Stock exchange. (Capital value)
B) income from dividends (income value)
C) voting rights (direction value)
If the company is not publically traded, then Capital value more or less disappears (can be assumed to be 0).
Income value is almost always the primary use-case for this kind of share.
Usually "employee held shares" have limited or restricted voting rights. (An extreme short-term position might be "liquidate the business and divide the spoils", which might be popular if the majority is nearing retirement, but is clearly not good for business survival.)
These shares should in no way ever be considered as part of your retirement plan. Period.
“Blue horseshoe likes annacott steel”
I love both the Oat Bran, and Scottish Oats they make.
"I came up here to study the Bible, and the Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And so there’s an element of how you treat people that impressed me. And sharing in the profit, sharing in the company to make things more fair and more benevolent impressed me, and I felt strongly about it."
source: https://www.pdxmonthly.com/eat-and-drink/2023/02/bobs-red-mi...
It's always interesting to me to see how Christianity intersects with capitalism.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with a Danish person, in reference to their welfare system: "some call it socialism - in Denmark we call it Christianity."
Now the dominant American expression of Christianity (Evangelicalism) teaches that socialism is some kind of evil and has politically aligned itself with the owner class.
I may be drunk, but I can't believe this argument is being made
I was not aware that Christianity had some sort of monopoly of "be nice".
The parable of the three talents is pretty instructive. It is considered a good work to run a business and employ people, to put them to useful work, and to pay them a fair wage so that they may raise a family.
"Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven." Luke 18:8-18:30
The biblical writers could not have been more clear on this topic. Prosperity theology is heresy.
Jesus speaks in parables for a reason.
> When deconstructed, there is a great deal in the doctrines and practices of the movement, which concurs with Wade Clark Roof’s view that North American ‘supply-side spirituality’ has always carried the assumption that the individual is entitled to an endless supply of material satisfactions.
What largesse its individual adherents may - and, under their own rule, may not! - distribute, detracts nothing from the school's focus on worldly acquisitiveness.
The state of their souls is a matter between them and what they worship. Having had firsthand opportunity to observe their behavior as well as their teaching, I have not in either sense seen them particularly interested in following the examples Christ gave and set.
What they are doing is attempting to collapse the parable, and have the riches of heaven while they live on earth. If there is a hell, this will land them there.
[1] https://doi.org/10.1080%2F713676038
The prosperity defense of the parable is that it was actually referencing a specific gate in Jerusalem that was very narrow and hard to get a camel through, so you had to unload your camel and get it to kneel through the gate. So you just have to be "humble."
I think most people recognize it as hogwash.
They further indict themselves in so doing, of course: 'As you do to the least of these...' But they still do it.
I don't wish to seem as if I seek an argument with you, and I also do not wish them to have the privilege of ever claiming they did it all unawares.
In the parable (the parable of the "rich young ruler") it is the "love of money" which is the fundamental issue, not the quantity of it.
Some people are able to attract large quantities of money, yet are able to flow that money to others well. Others have much less, but their love of money leads to exploitation, hoarding, jealousy, covetousness, selfishness and so on.
The "love of money" is in many ways the antithesis of Christian theology. Which is why the parable explains how it's a fundamental stumbling block - what we'd call a deal-breaker.
American Christians are unfortunate to live in a secular culture which values money over everything else, and this has permeated into the church culture. One need look no further than the political support, by professing Christians, to a "rich man" rather than to a "Godly man" within their own party.
The "love of money" is the root of all evil, not the money itself.
They are mutually exclusive
There is controversy behind what was actually written. https://kiwihellenist.blogspot.com/2023/11/camel.html
Mostly quotes have modern contexts and the meaning is defined by your modern community - perhaps nothing to do with what was actually said.
If we are allowed modern solutions then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38461089
Just old-school memes to my thinking.
Unfortunately that parable is about slaves, unfair retribution, and "But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.". Maybe means something entirely different in the Talmud.
I don't go to church, but I went to a wealthy demographic service to help a friend and that parable was mentioned - weird money-oriented Anglican service.
It's God's commandment to put your life to the purpose of bettering others. Merely showing up to Heaven with only your own soul to account for is not what he wants.
Fast forward to the enlightenment and new understanding of universal human rights implies that all people (not just monarchs) should have rights to property including ownership stakes of enterprises. And that the actions of enterprises should be overseen by boards.
Our modern idea that prices should be publicly posted and fair, and that losses should be born by businesses was created out of Quaker practices of equality.
If you have a link to some reading material about this, I'd love to check it out.
> "The Pennsylvania Quakers" "honest price" was institutionalized in 1874 by John Wanamaker, when he opened his eponymous department store in Philadelphia. A renowned innovator of the highest integrity, Wanamaker was the first retailer to offer money-back guarantees. He also invented the price tag: "A devout Christian, he believed that if everyone was equal before God, then everyone should be equal before price." Before Wanamaker's, every purchase was open to a haggle."
Indeed. There are many different Christian views on capitalism ranging from being outright anti-capitalism to the prosperity gospel which encourages it's adherents to get rich (and views riches as a sign of God's blessing - this is why that particular group could overlook so much of Trump's seemingly unchristian actions and values - they figured he's rich so he must be blessed by God).
Bob's Christian philosophy seems to have been somewhere between those two extremes. He definitely didn't view wealth as something to be hoarded, he used it to help lift up his workers and his community.
Or, if you want a shorter version see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_destination_of_goods
[1]: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docum... [2]: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docume... [3]: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/docume... [4]: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d... [5]: https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/d... [6]: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/docu...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/business/william-post-dea...
"a person of integrity and honor"
Capitalization is very important here! Also, e.g. if you are helping your uncle Jack off a horse, etc.
(The neutral version would be מאַן, which literally means man or husband.)
(For those wondering: “man” in Yiddish looks a lot like “mohn”, which is the same as German mohn.)
:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch
Jewish, not of German ancestry, but I've had a lot Yiddish spoken around me.
I no longer have my German language dictionary(-ies) or Duden books nor access to such where I am, sadly.
What is the benefit to the employee?
Employee-owned just means that employees are the shareholders.
now imagine if a company's only shareholders are the employees who work there. how much different would a company act if the people to whom the leadership are responsible are the employees themselves?
Voting is one way to get a majority opinion, but of course that doesn't make it right. Since everyone is in a different place in life what may be good for one (maximising income before retirement) may conflict with another (ensuring job stability and sustainability for the next 20 years.)
This is all true regardless of the decision making group - board of directors, c-suite, or employees.
So sure, some employee groups would make decisions not aligned with my goals. But equally other decision making groups do that all the time too.
This is a hard problem because, as a decision group you "can't make everyone happy." So it helps if the employee group are mostly on the same goals page, and if there are leaders who understand the decisions in terms of the agreed goals.
Meaning, that regardless of profit share, its a good thing if you work at a place where your goals, and the leadership goals are aligned.
No, this is not necessarily true - what you're describing is more akin to a co-op, not an employee owned company.
An employee owned company just means there is an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan). So employees own some or all of the company's stock. That's it, it's an ownership structure, not a management structure. It says absolutely nothing about day-to-day operations or how decisions are made. The vast majority of employee owned companies are still run like a dictatorship.
Source: I've worked for multiple employees owned companies. Both were effectively dictatorships. Literally zero voting whatsoever.
>What I described (bonuses over reinvestment) is a decision shareholders (employees) get to make.
Sure, My only point is there's nothing about being employee-owned that requires or even encourages allowing employees to vote on how money is spent, or anything at all for that matter. A privately owned company is just as likely to consider input from employees as an employee-owned company is.
Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd804.pdf
> Both employee owned companies I worked for the board made those sorts of decisions without any say from employees.
If there was 100% (or majority) employee ownership, would the employees not have the ability to use the general meeting process to eject board members they didn’t like? Aren’t employees voting for nominees to the board, allowing them to use a write-in process to bypass a hostile board?
>would the employees not have the ability to use the general meeting process to eject board members they didn’t like?
Lol, no.
Trust me, it would have happened if it were possible at one, the board was public enemy #1 among rank-and-file employees.
>Aren’t employees voting for nominees to the board, allowing them to use a write-in process to bypass a hostile board?
Lol, no. The board itself selects board members.
I'm not exaggerating, we literally had zero input on anything.
I.R.C. § 409(e) requires voting rights for the employee shareholders in an ESOP on certain matters, so your “anything at all” is not true.
I understood the context of the question to be cases where employees own the majority of the company. Maybe that is not what the questioner was meaning though.
In general, once a company established an ESOP[1], they eventually become 100% employee-owned. Usually when an owner establishes and ESOP that's the end goal.
It just takes many years to get to 100% because the company has to purchase shares from the owner and distribute them to the employees. It's not something that can happen overnight because the company has to fund those share purchases. Yes, the owner is paid, they don't actually "give away" the company.
[1] I should mention, in case it's not clear, that ESOP is not a general concept - it's a specific type of retirement plan in US law that's got a bunch of requirements associated with it.
Here's a bit more info - https://www.esoppartners.com/how-esop-works it's directed at company owners and actually touts staying in control as an advantage of an ESOP -
>An ESOP is also a flexible, tax-advantaged business transition and corporate finance tool that enables stakeholders in closely held companies to access their equity without giving up management control of the company, which enables an owner to carefully plan leadership succession and a smooth transition
Some of the US based companies in this list have something to do with tech and exist for quite some time. Interesting how these are run (i mean they would probably have closed shop if they were to hand out bonuses instead of investing)
/i am just asking, as I don't know much about the subject/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torch_Technologies a defense contractor with 519$ million revenue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematica_Inc. (the last dot is part of the link, HN doesn't handle these)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graybar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynetics they have 293$ m revenue
Normally companies seek to find the balance of "saving money" by paying lower wages that are just enough to entice mostly productive employees, and profiting from the employees labor.
To put it in the terms of Marx, the burgeouise pocketing the difference between the cost of their employees' labor and the value extracted from it is "surplus value", and is a manifestation of class warfare in capitalism that harms the working class. See also, "rent-seeking"
I don't mean to cast aspersions at Bob or his company, but articles frequently suggest that Bob gave his company away and that's simply inaccurate.
That's not what happens in an ESOP.
What does happen is that (as an account specializing in ESOPs explained it to me) owners sell their companies to employees at "the most boring accounting valuation available."
This does mean that the owners are often leaving significant money on the table. A competitor or investment group might be willing to offer a multiple of that "boring accounting valuation" in order to realize future growth, or recognize the value of eliminating a competitor or keep another company from getting a competitor.
But it's typically far from nothing.
The reason I suspect that Bob's ESOP transaction happened in stages over a 10-year period (from 2010 to 2020) was that companies don't typically have the cash-on-hand to buy out an owner all in one go, even at that lower "boring accounting" valuation.
Don't get me wrong. I think ESOPs are a great tool and should be used more often. I've had the chance to work with several ESOPs, and companies going from family-ownership to ESOP ownership. Employees really do behave differently when they "own" the company and have a direct stake in its future, and ESOPs provide stability and "employee first" thinking that corporate ownership and investment groups simply won't.
Bob absolutely did the right thing and should be commended for it. But it's helpful to accurately understand what actually happens in an ESOP transaction as well.
I don't agree with the "founders take all" model where risk and initial investment trump all future efforts and contributions. At the same time, there are merits to creating, managing, and sustaining a company which deserves some reward. Selling the company to workers over 10 years at a price they can feasibly afford while still earning good salaries and maintaining good finances seems kind of perfect to me.
I don't know the specifics; perhaps the company had to go into debt and the acquisition was a precarious thing. Regardless, it seems to me that a scenario where the sale is fair to both parties in this way seems ideal. The founder/owner is compensated reasonably and the workers gain agency and control over the capitalization of their own labour.
That's only to say I don't think it would need to be a gift to the workers to still be a virtuous or good thing to do. If it was a gift, great, that's nice that the owner can afford this and the workers get an incredible windfall they can all share in. It doesn't seem innately good because it's a gift, though.
I love that the company is employee-owned, and he just seems like an overall inspiration in many ways.
Delicious!
Oddly the rest of my family prefers other things so I eat them all myself.
Your breakfast is almost the exact same as his, complete with the frozen berries making a milk slush.
Bob is a great example of living in such a way that you get a great eulogy after you die instead of living in such a way as to accumulate as much as possible.
Here's their statement on being employee owned for the mute downvoters:
https://www.bobsredmill.com/employee-owned
1. Owner[s] sell their stock to the company (note the company needs to be fairly successful to have the cash to buy the shares. Sometimes it's bought all at once, but often on some sort of multi-year payment plan. Bob's Red Mill took approx. 10 years to buy out Bob and his partners.)
2. The company puts the stock into a trust held for the benefit of employees.
3. A portion of shares may be immediately distributed to employees based on key status, years of service, etc.
4. The shares are used as part of benefit packages. It's sort of like a 401k that the employees don't actually have to pay anything to participate in. The longer you're there, and the more important your role (generally), the more you end up owning, and it's generally treated like employer 401k matches in terms of income tax.
Usually after you reach a certain threshold, you're allowed to sell your shares to others or back to the company in order to diversify.
It sounds nice in theory, but in practice it's only ever resulted in destroyed livelihoods, unmotivated workers, and unfed millions (except when the USSR invaded Ukraine in the early 1930s to steal their grain to feed their own people).
But some more interesting mentions here including a video:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7465124
another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-24qPzpC0QA
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=656327>
Submission on the employee-owned transfer, though no discussion, 3 years ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26909483>
Lots of comments mentions (I've set the cut-off to 6 Feb 2024 to exclude obits), several of which seem to be part of longer threads (e.g., decline of breakfast cereal discussion a few months back):
<https://hn.algolia.com/?dateEnd=1707264000&dateRange=custom&...>
Thanks Bob!
I was going there during the recession years, and during those years when the schools were struggling hard with funding, Bobs Red Mill sent out huge amounts of flower, vegan cheese, and other extra food they had to our culinary program.
I have always loved that brand as a result, and have never declined the opportunity to buy from them. Their restaurant within their local store is also quite decent for what it is.