this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
138 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
87450 readers
3281 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Worker owned companies are the way forward.
Tech work can be highly volatile in the business environment. Maybe its different for new tech workers entering the work force, but for a worker owned company, this can mean large losses of revenue for months. I don't know many tech workers that are willing to take a massive pay cut to continue to stay and commit to a worker owned company if they personally can find better paying work elsewhere.
From the article:
"The playful atmosphere of tech offices flush with investment, enjoying luxe catered lunches to attract programming talent, has been replaced by a looming fear that layoffs are just around the corner "
This boom-and-bust cycle of tech growth and devastation has happened three times during my IT career. Its even more frequent in specific IT niche industries.
I think the boom and bust cycle of tech is result of capitalists trying to make big bets and then mostly failing.
With worker owned companies, you wouldn’t have this type of risky investing. Workers would optimization not for massive returns, but sustainable business practices, products, working conditions. A worker owned company wouldn’t burn cash for 10 years, artificially keeping prices low to starve out competition.
In order to transition to worker owned companies, it would be difficult as you mention, but governments could provide financial to help to get worker owned companies started.
Hang on. You're proposing seizure of existing private companies and forcing the creation of the worker co-ops? Thats a very different thing. Should I assume your system would ban future private companies then?
I wouldn't agree either of those approaches. Choice is important. Forcing people into co-ops because you think its better for them isn't a system I'm interested in being inside.
No I wasn’t suggested it be forced or companies be nationalized.
I was saying governments could provide incentives and support for workers to form worker owned companies. At the moment western governments heavily favor formation of capitalist companies.
My mistake then. So in your proposed system private companies would continue to exist.
If that's the case, I'll go back to my first statement then. Tech workers will likely choose the higher risk but higher reward private company rather than one that my only have a modest return. If the private companies exist along side the co-ops, the boom and bust cycles will still exist except the co-ops won't be the beneficiary, but will certainly be on the losing side of cycles.
promise everything, deliver nothing
same old same old commies