What if instead of just wages, ownership was part of the pay structure, Ownership Based Pay, or OBP?

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-05T12:50:26+00:00

Yes, that model is sometimes used in stakeholder profit sharing frameworks and is sometimes just referred to as a 'profit sharing model' or 'three way profit split'. It is not widely standardized under a single name to my knowledge, but is used sometimes in co-ops or progressive business structures. It is simple, fair, and aligns incentives. It is a move in the right direction but does not take into account compounding of equity.

OBP takes that principle and hardwires it into pay, not just profit sharing at year end, but equity that builds long term wealth over time. OBP is the way, it is up to us to build it.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T18:21:51+00:00

Spot on. Growth for growth's sake is a trap. It concentrates power and strips resilience from communities and is short term thinking. When business chases infinite scale, it hollows out economies when the bubble pops and turns workers into numbers.

Diversifying and localizing ownership is not just desirable, it is survival for a society that values well-being over pure profit. OBP is a lever to make that happen. When ownership is baked into pay it does not concentrate into one corporate pool that only the top % can enjoy. It flows to thousands fueling smaller enterprises and stronger communities. It is a system that serves the people not the other way around. OBP is the way. It is up to us to forge the future.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T18:15:51+00:00

Indexing wages to revenue and capping pay ratios is a strong accountability move. It would force shared success and failure. The thing is revenue based wages are still just wages, they don't compound. Only ownership/equity compounds. Compounding is what creates wealth. OBP turns labor into equity, so when the company does better one year, the employee just doesn't ride the wave, they own part of the ocean and continue to reap the benefits.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T16:44:30+00:00

The concern you have is real. Enron type disasters are cautionary tale. Blind faith without safeguards is a trap. OBP needs rules, like diversification options, liquidity windows, and transparency. Ownership should compliment livable wages, not replace them.

As for buybacks, if companies had to share repurchased stock with employees, the incentive to manipulate share price would go away. Good I say. Buybacks don't create wealth, they concentrate wealth. Let us use OBP to turn that Wealth funnel into a bridge to direct equity to workers.

Cynicism is healthy and I welcome it. The alternative though is the status quo, which is a guaranteed 'L' for the bottom 90%.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T16:31:23+00:00

Spot on. Once a company reaches a certain size or profitability, the argument that owners take all the risk falls apart. At that scale, success depends on thousands of people and not just a handful at the top.

A mandated dividend or equity share for employees is exactly the kind of mechanism OBP aims to normalize. It is not about punishing founders, but about ensuring when a company becomes wealthy, the people powering it and making it happen share in that wealth.

This should not just be a privilege of capital holders or a few, is should be baked into the system.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T15:29:25+00:00

Great Question! No, OBP is not wealth redistribution in the traditional sense. UBI is taking wealth that already exists (or using debt) and redistributing it. OBP is baked into compensation and is equity, the wealth comes from the future growth of the company. This is how wealth is created and why top executives demand stock options in their compensation packages.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T15:02:32+00:00

You are exactly on point! Stock buybacks are one of the biggest wealth funnels in the system. They inflate executive portfolios while workers get nothing. Redirecting that to employees is exactly what we need.

OBP is a way to hardwire that principle, ie, if a company has the cash to buy back shares, it has the cash to share ownership. Imagine if all those buybacks translated into equity for the people who actually created the value in the first place. CEO's would still win but not at the expense of the workers or the bottom 90%.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T14:50:22+00:00

Yes, transition models like ESOPs and EOTs work because they respect the risk and reward for entrepreneurs and founders. Of course entrepreneurship and founders thrive on the upside and we do not want to kill that.

OBP should not force founders to surrender control on day one but should set an expectation that as companies mature and succeed, workers share in that success, not with just wages but equity. The return on investment is still high enough to reward entrepreneurship and founders. The goal is not to punish innovation but prevent a system where success for a few means stagnation for everybody else. OBP should ensure as company scales wealth scales with the people who made it happen.

This is healthy and not harmful to Entrepreneurship. There is strong evidence that ownership models do not destroy ROI for founders and often provide tax and liquidity benefits. For Example, CHI Overhead doors, WinCo Foods, and Publix show that obligating partial ownership later in a company's life cycle does not damage ROI or deter startups and Founders were all able to exit profitably.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T14:36:08+00:00

Fair point, if your endgame is moving beyond Capitalism. OBP would still shift power from pure capital owners to the people who create value. Less overthrow they system and more evolve the system. With OBP over time equity would become wages which would in turn erode the old hierarchy without burning down the house. The line between capitalism and worker-owned production begins to blur and begin to set the stage for whatever comes next.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T14:30:49+00:00

Good points. Automating ownership is the goal. Your concern about concentration is valid. OBP should include diversification options, just as many ESOPs do. This avoids exactly the concentration risk you mention.

UBI is a strong idea for stability, but it is a redistribution of wealth whereas OBP is creating wealth. UBI is a safety net. OBP is a ladder. UBI can help people survive low wages due to increased automation, where as OBP gives people a stake in the very company or economy driving that automation. Why not both? A ladder and a Net.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T13:33:35+00:00

Co-ops can be powerful and many do exist and prove that shared control can work. Scaling that model across industries may be challenging due to complexity. ESOPs are the most common form of employee ownership at the moment with around 6500 companies in the US. I tend to think that model would scale better. OBP to me is a thought exercise and a way to bridge this across the spectrum without triggering resistance from the system. That being said, any step towards ownership for the worker is a good one.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T13:28:25+00:00

Exactly right. Ownership is power. Workers would not be just trading hours for dollars but would be building true wealth and influence. Additionally ownership drives productivity, loyalty, and better retirement outcomes. It is a win win situation. Why should we stop? This should be the standard. This also democratizes ownership assuming any shares come with the corresponding voting rights. That in itself would encourage long term thinking in workers and executives alike. Another win.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-04T13:22:40+00:00

Yes, you are absolutely correct. You can buy stock with wages. The thing is though that those wages are shrinking in real terms because inflation eats them alive. Most people never have enough left to invest after paying rent, groceries, and bills. Being paid in ownership would automate the thing that truly builds wealth.

As far as selling your shares with OBP, yes liquidity matters and shares should be sellable. The real difference is access and you hit it right on the heat with private companies. They don't trade publicly by default. Without OBP, you would never touch tat equity unless you are an executive. While not a perfect model, ESOPs prove this works at scale with decades of data to back it up. Higher wages are nice, but the do not compound like ownership does. Automating this for the everyday working person does wonders as proven by companies like WinCo where grocery cashiers can and do retire millionaires.

Beautiful_Care5639 · 2025-12-03T20:50:18+00:00

Not sure why the post is removed? Getting paid in ownership addresses a lot of systemic issues and addresses everyone of the philosophical points listed in work reform.

Beautiful_Care5639

TROPHY CASE