The Man Who Sold Shares of Himself

RougeFemme writes "This is a fascinating story about a man who sold shares in himself, primarily to fund his start-up ideas. He ran into the same issues that companies run into when taking on corporate funding — except that in his case, the decisions made by his shareholders bled over into his personal life. This incuded his relationship with his now ex-girlfriend, who became a shareholder activist over the issue of whether or not he should have a vasectomy. The experiment continues." The perils of selling yourself to your friends.

Comments

he should...

[Anonymous Coward]

He should sell some shares of himself to a cannibal ....

Re:he should...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he did that by selling to his GF...

Ducking for cover and posting as a coward!

I hate people

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from slavery?

Re:Slavery?

[wjousts]

Well, I guess it voluntary.

Re:Slavery?

[lurker1997]

Didn't read the article but basically it is the same as taking a loan from a bank. You have to give some of your future earnings to someone else.

Re:Slavery?

[Nidi62]

Actually, in it's earlier forms (especially in Rome) slavery could in fact be voluntary. People actually were able to sell themselves into slavery, usually to pay a debt. Of course, back then slaves weren't really as exploited as they were in more modern times and one could even buy themselves out of slavery if the made enough money. A lot of slaves weren't just free/cheap labor, they became skilled craftsmen and could make a decent amount of money on the side. Or there was always the gladiatorial games if you were really desperate, since those rarely ended in death.

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

In just about every way humanly possible (excuse the pun.) For example, he made a decision after weighing various trade-offs and chose to profit in this fashion. Those three boldface words aren't words you would ever use when describing a slave.

Re:Slavery?

[coldsalmon]

The difference is that Mike can violate the agreement at will, and only be liable for money damages. His "shareholders" have no legal right to physically confine him - they only have a civil remedy in contract law. It is impossible to legally turn yourself into a slave (or other non-person) because a person always has the right to breach a contract.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am13.html?ModPagespeed=noscript

Re:Slavery?

[dkleinsc]

It's not slavery, it's indentured servitude. And that doesn't make it any less stupid or wrong.

Re:Slavery?

[Baloroth]

Slavery does not have to be involuntary, nor non-profitable. As others have pointed out, people in ancient Rome would often sell themselves into slavery for money. Force is not a necessary condition for slavery, although historically it usually is.

Re:Slavery?

[femtobyte]

Key differences from a bank loan:
(a) you may never be able to pay it back, since the more wealth and willingness you have to buy back outstanding shares and "go private," the more those shares are likely to cost, and
(b) the bank doesn't make detailed decisions about how you live your life; only that you must pay back $XX every month (regardless of how you get it)

Re:Slavery?

[dubsnipe]

Because it's free market!

Re:Slavery?

[blackraven14250]

The difference is the connotation of slavery does include force and non-profitability. When someone says "slavery" in the U.S., the immediate image that comes to mind is the African-American slave on a plantation, not the Roman slave.

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Your post is a perfect example of the phrase "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." More importantly, you haven't addressed what I wrote at all. In this situation he continues to have freedom of choice and to profit. He can choose to get a vasectomy regardless of what the board votes, for example. His stock may plummet, but again he can weigh the trade-offs and choose. Also, while I didn't I use the word force once, I'll accept your subject change and address it since it supports my first sentence in this post. Duress is a form of force. Teach yourself about how and why people "sold themselves" into slavery, and you will quickly find that a form of force known as duress was used every time.

Re:Slavery?

[IndustrialComplex]

Of course, back then slaves weren't really as exploited as they were in more modern times and one could even buy themselves out of slavery if the made enough money

Slavery from those two time periods certainly had differences, but I don't think it rises to the levels where you can consider them different institutions. In the US when slavery was legal, there were many cases of men buying their freedom from their owners.

One of the reasons we may not hear about as much abuse/exploitation from ancient times was because if your society did not consider an action (such as sleeping with your slaves) to be an abuse, it simply wasn't debated as it wasn't interesting, no more than buying vegetables from the local market was something for debate.

Re:Slavery?

[Billly Gates]

The difference is that Mike can violate the agreement at will, and only be liable for money damages. His "shareholders" have no legal right to physically confine him - they only have a civil remedy in contract law. It is impossible to legally turn yourself into a slave (or other non-person) because a person always has the right to breach a contract.

Spoken as someone who has not graduated recently with student loans. Many with $12hr jobs after graduating are expected to pay $1200 a month or more! They live with their parents and work for free for 10 years. Explain why thats not indentured servitude?

FYI I am not talking isolated cases but the norm in todaus dollars. I am lucky and only pay $600 a month because I went to a community college to cut down costs.

Servitude is the new norm in the 21st century.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

Well it would not be abuse... Prostitution was legal, and if you are a slave you cannot object to the type of labour your owner asks of you (within legal bounds at least).

Theoretically you could come up with a slavery contract that restricted what the owner could ask you to do and when and how much, but at what point would that still be called slavery?
If you are a slave, but only plant and harvest cotton, and only from 9 to 5, 5 days a week. then you are just a contracted worker who is paid upfront.

Re:Slavery?

[cusco]

duress was used every time

I suppose, if you consider accumulating a dowry for your daughter or purchasing land for your son to farm as forms of duress. Those wouldn't have been included in my definition, though.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

I am pretty sure this is only "legal" since no one is has tried take any of these people to court.

Re:Slavery?

[TubeSteak]

It's not slavery, it's indentured servitude. And that doesn't make it any less stupid or wrong.

Seeing how slavery and indentured servitude are not legal, this is more or less a voluntary commitment on his part.

No one can take him to court and get the contract enforced.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

You're complaining that people borrow huge sums of money voluntarily, interest free for several years, and that there are societal and legal restraints which obligate them to repay it?

"Entitlement mentality", not servitude.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

And when someone says global warming or evolution in the US there are other INCORRECT ignorant images that might come to their minds. That does not change the definition of the word.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken as someone who has not graduated recently with student loans. Many with $12hr jobs after graduating are expected to pay $1200 a month or more! They live with their parents and work for free for 10 years. Explain why thats not indentured servitude?

FYI I am not talking isolated cases but the norm in todaus dollars. I am lucky and only pay $600 a month because I went to a community college to cut down costs.

Servitude is the new norm in the 21st century.

People have to live with their poor choices. Choosing to go to a private university for a degree in Art History is one of those poor choices, especially when financing the entire thing.

Additionally, income based repayment exists. Nobody making $12/hr has to pay $1200/mo or more unless they're stupid and don't explore payment options. It's entirely possible that they're stupid though, since they've financed an education that nets them a $12/hr job.

Re:Slavery?

[Yakasha]

That does not change the definition of the word.

Actually, it does. That is how language evolves. Webster has to print new editions quite often to accommodate the changes. :)

Re:Slavery?

[yurtinus]

Completing school with crushing debt and no job prospects is not "the new norm" - that's either being woefully unlucky or simply doing it wrong. I'm not trying to say student debt isn't burdensome - but I honestly know nobody in the situation you describe. They all have reasonable jobs (40k, 50k, or more), live on their own, and can afford their payments and lifestyle. Those I know with the highest debt had made the conscious decision to borrow more for time abroad knowing they'd be paying it back down the road (none regret this decision).

Education cost is definitely something we need to keep an eye on, and student loan burden is definitely growing - but to equate going to college with indentured servitude is simply wrong.

Re:Slavery?

[cervesaebraciator]

Theoretically you could come up with a slavery contract that restricted what the owner could ask you to do and when and how much, but at what point would that still be called slavery?

Conversely, at what point could employment conditions in the industrial world, where the threat of being fired is like the threat of losing access to healthcare or even losing your home, be called a slow, steady return to the servile state? In the Roman republic, the working poor largely chose to work as what we would call day laborers. Workers would hang out near the forum (they didn't have a Home Depot, or I suppose a Domus Depositum back then, the savages) and wait for someone to come hire them for the day. One of the most common jobs was simply carrying goods, mostly building material, from the outer to the inner parts of town since ox carts were forbidden in town. You'd get a flat wage for the work once the day was done and you'd likely work for someone else entirely the next day. I forget the exact calculations, but once the public grain dole was in place an unskilled laborer could make a living for himself and his family by securing such work for about 100 days out of the year. You wouldn't get rich but you'd have food in your stomach and enough money to rent an apartment in one of the massive apartment blocks (insulae). This was considered a preferable form of unskilled labor for many because there was a stigma attached to regular employment, i.e. going to work for the same person day after day, and taking his orders, looked too much like slavery.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population.
Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

In my opinion, that is one of major downfalls of living in civilization that has outlawed slavery. It becomes far harder, if not impossible, to tell if you are a slave or not.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery was just as brutal back then as it was in the 1800s.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

I think they are very different institutions, and very different things.

In one you have people owning people.
In another you have people owning non-human animals. Black slavery was not really slavery, as the blacks where not considered people to begin with.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be more apt to call the ancient Roman system bondage, since slavery has a lot of modern connotations that lead to misconceptions.

Re:Slavery?

[Yebyen]

What's wrong is that they can come after your family if you die or default, even when your family have not co-signed on your loans.
They should assume, I guess, since your parents had the money to raise you and feed you until you reached college age that they can be liable for your debts, too. Pish tosh.

Re:Slavery?

[scot4875]

"Voluntarily", as in, if you want any HR department to not immediately round-file your application, you have to have this "voluntary" certification.

Amazing how when someone puts in their time and work and kind of expects to get something out of it, fuckheads like you *still* call them entitled.

--Jeremy

Re:Slavery?

[scot4875]

I do know some hard-working people who were unable to secure a decent job with their degrees. I guess my anecdotal evidence (plus a huge swath of statistics) outweighs your anecdotal evidence.

Also, keep in mind that it has gotten *substantially* worse in the last 10-20 years. School costs have skyrocketed and entry-level jobs have bottomed out on salary (and availability, for that matter). If you graduated in the '90s, your experience is probably nothing like what graduates of today face.

--Jeremy

Re:Slavery?

[Billly Gates]

Completing school with crushing debt and no job prospects is not "the new norm" - that's either being woefully unlucky or simply doing it wrong. I'm not trying to say student debt isn't burdensome - but I honestly know nobody in the situation you describe. They all have reasonable jobs (40k, 50k, or more), live on their own, and can afford their payments and lifestyle. Those I know with the highest debt had made the conscious decision to borrow more for time abroad knowing they'd be paying it back down the road (none regret this decision).

Education cost is definitely something we need to keep an eye on, and student loan burden is definitely growing - but to equate going to college with indentured servitude is simply wrong.

What year did you and your buddies graduate? If was 1999 you could major in Art History and take just 2 programming courses and immediately have employers banging down on your door throwing $45,000 a year at you! Your student loan debts at a public university would probably be $350 a month with 2% interest. If you couldn't find a good job then you sucked or plainly something else was wrong.

I graduated in 2009. Out of all the classmates I keep in touch with only 2 found white collar jobs. The rest took blue collar and retail jobs or are sitll semi employed. I was lucky to do my 2 years at a community college so I only have $40,000 which is considered low. My ex got a masters in teaching and owes $130,000 and $1600 a month for her teaching job. .... one of the reasons for our divorce.

The BestBuy in my area is filled with graduates desperate to find any job they can get. All the I.T. jobs where I am at only pay $12 - $16/hr and require MCSE, 4 year degree, and 3 years solid experience. The wage is set correctly in the managers eyes as there are always lines of desperate CS graduates willing to take them with many oweing $80,000 or more. This is the normal price of college in 2013. You sir are in a bubble if you talk to anyone under 30?

The very definition of indentured servitude and the beginning of slavery started in America where if you couldn't afford the fare to move to the colonies you signed a 7 year contract to work for free and after 7 years the fare is paid and you are a free man. It was debt contract. Yes, student loans are a form of indentured sevatude as they are by the very definition the same thing.

If you do not want to work 70 hours a week for free after your bills at 2 McCrappy jobs YOU MUST go to school. So the school raises the cost and the job creators decide they prefer H1b1 visas or require more experience leaving the debtor on the hook.

I am not complaining at all as I am doing all I can and busting my butt but I get paid less than what I made 8 years ago and am one of the few Americans at my clients site. Those are also lost jobs. So in my opinion it is that bad and debt does equal indentured servitude which is a step above slavery which is the other option if all your money just goes to exist and you still starve.

Re:Slavery?

[cervesaebraciator]

Maybe not for such instances. Though I honestly have not seen any sources that indicate someone selling himself into slavery to accumulate money for a dowry. But say rather that you are presented with these options: 1) suffer physical violence and possible death for failure to repay debt; 2) starve or see your children starve to save up money to pay the debt; 3) sell yourself into slavery to pay the debt. Would this be included in your definition?

Re:Slavery?

[Billly Gates]

I am not complaining at all. Doing what I can as I played smart but still am broke but at least have an option to recover.

My classmates working at BestBuy with 3.4 GPAs on the otherhand missed out and now no employer will touch them. FYI my interest is 7% and I would be flipping burgers without it. That my friend is not entitlement

Re:Slavery?

[danb35]

Explain to me exactly how your family becomes liable for loans they did not agree to--especially on your death, upon which federal student loans are forgiven anyway.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Voluntary" slavery is a legally established form of servitude, annexation of personality willand service, etc. since before the Romans. In Augustus' day Roman Patricians wanting in on the Palace Staff - which had hijacked the public administration the patrician senate and "society" had let whither into irrelevance - sold themselves as slaves to the palace. Highly placed Palace slaves often hadmore power, responsibility and bribes than Senators, and other public officials.

It was also traditionally practiced in africa, where the "slave" became a member of the clan with restricted rights and more obligations. Sort of like the Roman system of patronage. In the African system, the "slave" could have his own land, grow his own food - have most of a "normal" life. But, he had to give himself up as human sacrifice on certain rituals - burials, droughts, floods, war etc. Very similar to the present system practiced in the US, with the exception of the legal rhetoric,of course. But, even that has been changing. Ever so perniciously.

This is the second post in two days, in slashdot, pimping for slavery. Sic Transit.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

I never had to take out a student loan. Might have had something to do with going to in-state schools, and working part time.
I believe my parents took roughly the same course.
And I have a fairly good job.

Part of the problem is this ridiculous mentality that you cant get a job if your degree wasnt from Georgetown. Sure, you can.... youll just have substantially less debt and perhaps a slightly lower salary. But hey, if you want to gamble on years of debt on the off chance your salary will be a few thousand per annum higher, go for it. Just dont complain that anyone caused the problem but you.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

In state tuition-- at least in virginia, and quick research indicates this is not unusual-- does not generally require years of debt @ 7%. I borrowed from my parents, and paid it off in ~15 months, if I recall, having taken jobs waiting tables and made roughly ~1/2 of the money back. This was from a technical school which cost for 1.5 years roughly the same as it would have cost for 4 years at an in-state college.

Right now, a virginia resident could attend UVA, VA Tech, JMU, GMU, or W&M for ~ $6000 / semester. You could do your Freshman and Sophmore years at VCC (community colleges) for ~ $1600 / semester; your entire degree would hit roughly $30,000, over the course of 4 years. As a waiter, I was able to pull in $15,000 / year, at a fairly standard restaurant. Working summers even as a maintenance guy would pull in ~$2000 (2002 dollars), so worst case you are ending your school career with $22,000 in debt, and more likely (if you can pull your weight as a waiter) something like $15,000 of debt.

You CANNOT tell me it is an impossible feat to get a degree and pay your debt off, unless you are insisting on a school choice that is completely irresponsible.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

He cant. The only case I am aware of something like that could happen, is that those debts could affect his estate; Im not an expert but I expect creditors would be first in line ahead of your family, regardless of what your will says.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

He used to be a person. But now he has been bestowed with the power of corporate personhood. Basically, it means he can break all the laws he wants if he is willing to pay a fine (against the corporation, not him). And if he runs out of money due to faked drug tests that killed thousands or some other nefarious plan, he can simply declare bankruptcy and walk away (and maybe even give himself a gold parachute to make his transition easier).

Re:Slavery?

[datavirtue]

Indeed, slavery is a not a philosophical idea, it is purely an economic endeavor.

Re:Slavery?

[Yebyen]

There are other than federal student loans:
http://money.msn.com/saving-money-tips/post.aspx?post=76403ee4-9604-480e-ad05-9f2cf2292cce
This story is about a guy who has exactly that problem.

Also, if you default (and did not die), I had read that your family can be held responsible for your federal student loans even if they did not co-sign, which I have not been able to find a link to confirm. This link seems to say I am wrong about the co-signing. It is co-signing that makes you liable. Mea culpa.
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/debt/co-signing-student-loan-makes-you-liable.aspx

Re:Slavery?

[Billly Gates]

Well good for you!

In Florida the cost is $20,000 a year with a 5% increase every year for in state residents! I admit that price does include room and board. So lets do the math and tell me you can afford to wait tables and pull that in and then get $12/hr = $24,000 a year to pay it back when you graduate? I know this because I had a grant to get a 2nd college degree. Also that cost increase goes up 5% a year!

Once a state needs to cut its budget the first thing goes is the college system. Virginia is insulated due to all the money from the DC area. My state in Florida got hit very hard in the recession. California is a similiar story.

Times my friend have changed. In the 1990s you could also make $19/hr at UPS being a package handler and delivery driver. Today that same job pays $9/hr. Why? Because there are more people than jobs today. In essence working for free for 10 years is the new norm unless economic conditions radically improve. Many employers still wont hire anyone unless they have years of experience matching word by word from the job description for an entry level job.

In the 90s they would train you if you had a good non related job and a degree. Rent in the 1990s was affordable today it eats up the other half after student loans.

So I disagree as it is indentured servitude right to the very core but hey you might make it out if can get a foot in the door somehow.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

the bank doesn't make detailed decisions about how you live your life; only that you must pay back $XX every month (regardless of how you get it)

Actually, business loans can and do include a number of controls over corporate decisions. Requirements for working capital; limits on debt/equity; conditions on dividend distribution. A loan is just like any other kind of contract and can contain any language that both parties agree to. Personal loans and mortgages are generally too small and too numerous to be worth 'personalizing' to any extent, but I can easily imagine "must attend AA meetings" as a clause.

Re:Slavery?

[Rogue Haggis Landing]

Actually, in it's earlier forms (especially in Rome) slavery could in fact be voluntary. People actually were able to sell themselves into slavery, usually to pay a debt. Of course, back then slaves weren't really as exploited as they were in more modern times and one could even buy themselves out of slavery if the made enough money. A lot of slaves weren't just free/cheap labor, they became skilled craftsmen and could make a decent amount of money on the side. Or there was always the gladiatorial games if you were really desperate, since those rarely ended in death.

You're talking about the debt bondage called nexum , which was outlawed in 326 BC, pretty early in Roman history. It had no real role in the bulk of Roman history.

The condition of slaves in ancient Rome varied considerably. Some were essentially professional workers, who had jobs and could expect to earn their freedom while they were still young enough to start a family and have a free life. At the high end, several future Emperors were educated by Greek slaves. At the other end, some slaves were miners who could expect to live only a few years. Some were agricultural workers who had a rough life with little chance of advancement, but who could hope to at least survive. Rome was a slave society, with a huge percentage of the population either current or former slaves. They did almost every job available, and their condition was just as varied.

As for gladiators, the best guess is that you had a 1 in 9 chance of dying in any bout. This means that the mean survival would be 6 bouts. Wikipedia suggests that 20-25% of losers died. These numbers are all educated guesses, but the general point stands. A slave who was a gladiator would probably have to survive something like 10 fights to gain his freedom, and his odds of surviving that were very, very poor.

Re:Slavery?

[Sique]

It's easy. If you can terminate your contract at any time, and all you lose are the benefits, then you are not a slave.

Re:Slavery?

[nitehawk214]

Well, I guess it voluntary.

You are not permitted to sign away your basic rights. What constitutes basic rights is up for debate, though.

Re:Slavery?

[MickLinux]

According to my grandfather, who lived in Burbank...

The way it works around Chicago is this: You get fairly rich, say a million dollars or so, maybe taxes of a hundred thousand. You die. The lawyer whose job it is to represent you finds any number of challengers, whom he pays to challenge the will. It doesn't matter how bad each case is, he just has to get enough sequential cases lined up to keep the will in probate.

He does this, until the estate is completely drained of its million dollars. At that point, the challengers immediately vanish, leaving the estate to go to the right and proper heirs.

Estate Net Original Value: $1M . Valuable Services Recieved: $1M. Amount paid for said valuable services Recieved: $1M. Taxes owed on Estate: $100k.

To the IRS. Good luck trying to duck that one. They need their money, scofflaw. Better pay up.

Whether he was correct or not, I do not know. However, the situation stimulated him to form a living trust.

Re:Slavery?

[nitehawk214]

Domus Depositum

Brilliant.

Re:Slavery?

[Yebyen]

So who in this story is the scammer, who is doing the scamming, and who is supposed to be getting scammed?

I think what you're saying is that the lawyer gets paid $1mil and you (person inheriting the mil) owe $100k.

Re:Slavery?

[nitehawk214]

It's easy. If you can terminate your contract at any time, and all you lose are the benefits, then you are not a slave.

With work being plentiful and easy to obtain, this is no problem. Today it is a hassle for companies to hire labour, and nearly every person in the Western world is in at least 2x their annual salary in debt. Combine that with a generation-low employment rates, and it practically encourages employers to abuse their employees to squeeze every last drop from them before they burn out.

Granted we have supermarkets, cars, big screen TVs, and houses that the ancient world could never dream of... so getting in debt might be worth it. I would rather not live in an apartment and rely solely on public transportation and feet as I did in my youth.

Re:Slavery?

[MickLinux]

No. Skip school, get the two mccrape jobs, and buy the cheapest plot of land you can.

Next, trade up to a construction / factory labor job. Ready Ice, a cement precast company, what not. At a shipyard, you can get paid to learn welding.

Meanwhile, biointensively garden that land.

With the welding, turn around and buy a mobile home. That's about the time you move out of your parents' home.

Pick one near a community college, and rent out to roomers.

Then, when you have enough money and income to live and go to community college for two years, pick up a 2-year associate degree.

Now work another two years in the industry. Save your money.

Then go back to a four-year, and pick up that four-year degree.

Then graduate, and get a job with your experience. Make your degrees match the work you have already been doing.

Another two years work, and then back in for your masters (2 more).

So now you've aged 12 years, but you are basically self-supporting with a better job than anyone else your age, except those with massive connections or who were already rich.

And if it all goes south, you still have that garden plot. At some point, the city won't bother you for living on your own land -- maybe.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

nearly every person is in that much debt? citation needed, please.

oh, and if you're talking about national debt, sorry, that's not the same thing.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the I.T. jobs where I am at only pay $12 - $16/hr and require MCSE, 4 year degree, and 3 years solid experience. Sounds like you need to join Fifel and move out west. They pay I.T. interns out here that much, sometimes even more.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

Then move to virginia. You will establish residency in 12 months, and benefit from a state with some of the best schools in the country (primary, secondary, and university) and a great job market. Average rent in the DC metro area with 2 roomates hovers around $7200 / year, but you can easily halve that if youre willing to tough it for a while.

So for an extra $15k (4 years of rent), you pay $30k for school rather than the 80k for school you are recommending (plus, I would assume that rent isnt free in florida, either). That sounds like good sense, to me.

Re:Slavery?

[LordLimecat]

That sounds correct; thanks for fact checking.

Re:Slavery?

[yurtinus]

I'm not arguing the cost/benefit ratio isn't dropping at a worrying rate, you are spot on in what you're saying. I got my degree in 05, so again, a different job market than now for my anecdotes.

I'm just arguing the hyperbole in GP's post. According to CNN, the average starting salary for a new grad is ~$45k - a far cry from the $12/hour he's claiming. As I said, we absolutely need to keep an eye on education costs and keeping our debt under control, but calling the current situation indentured servitude is ridiculous.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit.

There were many a freeman who didn't know he was a slave working in the factories of the North. Sure you "can leave anytime you want" provided you don't owe anything at the company store and actually saved (LOL) enough money to go frontier.

North Eastern factory owners successfully lobbied to have land prices (free land, stolen from natives) increased substantially because it was too easy for their wage slaves to go out west and try to make a life for themselves outside of the slums of factory servitude.

Re:Slavery?

[longbot]

Student loans and medical bills make that figure not much of an exaggeration for many. Though I agree, certainly not all.

Re:Slavery?

[FooAtWFU]

Yes. Labor economists have compared the costs to you as an employee which arise from the difficulty in quitting and finding a job somewhere else to be a mild form of monopsony exploitation (there's a single buyer of your labor). However, a 1989 paper estimated the overall rate of monopsonistic exploitation of the general labor force to be no more than 1-3% ("The Employer-Size Wage Effect." Journal of Political Economy 97, no. 5). It would be interesting if someone would like to study whether or not this has changed significantly in the intervening 25 years, but I expect that would be a surprising result.

Here's some additional reading on the topic including reference to some studies examining specific fields (e.g. baseball players with subject to a reserve clause, where the rate may be 100-600%).

Re:Slavery?

[yurtinus]

2005 was a much different job market than now, sure I'll give you that. It *sucks* for somebody who graduated any time between 2008 and now. What I don't understand is how people rack up that much in student loans. $60k would get a four year degree at the nearest public university, *including* high-priced on-campus room and board. A part time job and scholarships can offset much, if not all, of that cost.

I'm not going to claim that people aren't getting themselves into shitty debt situations with their student loans, it's just not necessary with some extra work and planning in most cases.

Re:Slavery?

[Billly Gates]

I'm not arguing the cost/benefit ratio isn't dropping at a worrying rate, you are spot on in what you're saying. I got my degree in 05, so again, a different job market than now for my anecdotes.

I'm just arguing the hyperbole in GP's post. According to CNN, the average starting salary for a new grad is ~$45k - a far cry from the $12/hour he's claiming. As I said, we absolutely need to keep an eye on education costs and keeping our debt under control, but calling the current situation indentured servitude is ridiculous.

Citation?

I know no one making that even with years of experience who have recently graduated. Most would feel rich at 40k. I see a totally different world than you and I am curious if I am hyperboling or not? Perhaps medical students make that fresh out of school or some certain areas like Nursing but certainly not what I have seen recently.

Teachers can make up to 35k fresh out of school and have the best starting salary but long term is not a winning strategy to get rich. Employers here do not care at all about the fancy CS degree unless you have a nice portfolio but perhaps that is isolated and not the new norm I keep seeing?

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and new words are born..."indentured servant" anyone?

Re:Slavery?

[stymy]

Actually, gladiators weren't just poor men. Looking at the things found in Pompeii, such as slogans painted on walls for example, it seems that top gladiators were a bit like movie stars today. Rich women would pay fortunes to sleep with them, they were recognized everywhere, etc., and so some people volunteered to be gladiators, even if they didn't need the money.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for teaching me a new term today.

From someone that has had to work for eight years in a string of blue collar professions after the local technology sector became flooded with college graduates desperate to find any work in their field at any price, I am confident that the 1-3% number is very wrong today. For the poor people that work in factories and transport, I would say it is closer to 50% in my estimation. A quick search leads to about 18% of people in my home state of Michigan quite literally having nowhere else to go without changing professions. That leaves out the large percentage of the state that is entirely dependent on recreation activities-hunting, fishing, tourism, and the like where in small towns there are often only a handful of employers. The only people capable of lateral moves are ones that can make use of nepotism or are highly skilled. Many cannot even afford to move to areas with greater opportunity let alone education or skills development. It is no wonder why crime can be so high. Desperate working class people that have nowhere to go doing whatever they can.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is wholly untrue as the existence of free negroes at the time can attest to.

Re:Slavery?

[Yakasha]

Yes, but is this case we are not talking about a change of a word, but an ignorant population. Americans have not changed the definition away from "A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.", they simply do not understand slavery.

Americans understand the most recent definition of slavery, which was developed by our own historical practices, and has remained largely unchanged for the last 200 years. Even the Roman definition of slavery changed between the start of the empire and the end. To say Americans don't understand slavery because today's definition is different than the 2000 year old Roman definition is silly. Yes, they are ignorant of ancient Roman slavery, but not slavery in general.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's change you can believe in.

Re:Slavery?

[wisnoskij]

Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.

A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.

American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.

Re:Slavery?

[Opportunist]

Oh yeah, voluntary. The alternative being having a burger flipper job for the rest of your life.

That's like saying having a home is voluntary 'cause as long as you have waterproof clothing you could just live on the street. Or hey, move to somewhere warmer, there are so many options, you needn't live in areas where it's snowing, ya know?

Re:Slavery?

[Opportunist]

*shrug* Why should I even complain, I have a degree from a fairly prestigious university and zip student loans?

How to do it? Well, living in Europe where education costs are very moderate (I'd say 300 bucks a semester is pretty affordable for everyone) sure helps.

Re:Slavery?

[Opportunist]

I've started to ignore degrees and go straight for the portfolio. Right now, of the 8 people in my department, 3 actually have a degree in a related field, but at least that didn't warp them too badly. 2 had some college education and one of them doesn't have anything but high school. The others graduated in ... something. I think.

I need people with brains. I have to train them anyway, so why bother getting someone who expects (or has to expect to get out of debt) twice the money?

Re:Slavery?

[yndrd1984]

Black slavery was not really slavery, as the blacks where not considered people to begin with.

That is wholly untrue as the existence of free negroes at the time can attest to.

While I find the argument stomach-turning, I'm pretty sure they had both pet and stray cats back then.

Re:Slavery?

[sanman2]

How is having a GF any different from slavery?

Re:Slavery?

[CAIMLAS]

That wasn't 'early slavery'. Slavery existed long before that and it was often brutal. Take pretty much any religious text, they make note of slavery and slave conditions quite often.

Re:Slavery?

[CAIMLAS]

If you have to ask, or if there's question in your mind, you probably are.

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"I suppose, if you consider accumulating a dowry for your daughter or purchasing land for your son to farm as forms of duress. Those wouldn't have been included in my definition, though."

That is because I use the actual definition of duress, whereas you have just created your own alternate definition. In your incorrect definition, if some one gained anything it isn't duress. You have left out the preconditions for the decision, which is absolutely required in order to establish the presence of duress.

For example, if I tell you a teenager sold his car and was allowed to pocket $100 you seem to think we can now conclude that there was no duress. However, once we gain more information in our fictional scenario and learn that the teenagers options were to sell the car or be cast out into the freezing cold with no money, help, or means of support then we can realize that he in fact sold the car under duress despite having $100.00 in his pocket that he didn't have yesterday.

Re:Slavery?

[cusco]

Poverty = Duress? OK, if you say so. Not a definition that I've ever seen, but I've never bothered to look it up. I suppose that I was under duress the entire time I was flipping burgers at Wendys and making sandwiches at Hoagie Joe's then.

Re:Slavery?

[Cederic]

Since you'd pay tax on your share of the estate, if your share is $0 your tax burden is.. quite low.

The IRS can go fuck themselves.

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

I never said, nor implied any such thing. In the above scenario the father has told the teenager "sell your car or you are kicked out of the house". This should have been obvious, but you seem to have assumed that it was reasonable to assume that the teenager was self sufficient and that $100.00 is enough money on which to survive. I can see now why you have a problem understanding the difference between incorporating oneself and becoming a slave.

Re:Slavery?

[yurtinus]

Several of the first links on a google search for "average starting salary out of college": CNN was the particular one I clicked, but the same number was at a several major news websites. If you're in an area where teachers make the best starting salary out of college, I think you should expand your job search to other regions...

Excellent point on the portfolio though, if you're able to point at several existing projects you've done or contributed to in a major way, then to hell with college and the degree. Of course, your employers seem to be after competent people with years of experience and can't break $35k per year...

Re:Slavery?

[cusco]

Sometimes I miss things that are obvious to others, as in this case. Maybe that's because I was in the situation, in my late teens, where $75 was the difference between being able to pay my rent or being homeless. Didn't eat anything but rice and ramen for two weeks, but didn't get evicted. Sometimes context is important.

Re:Slavery?

[Yakasha]

Americans never really even had slaves. Their addiction to cheap labour lead them to view Africans as not people and therefore where not considered slaves technically. This meant that American "slavery" was a completely different institution from actual slavery where slaves where people who just happened to be owned by other people at that time. Latter they might buy themselves out of slavery, and then sell themselves to someone else.

A black man was a black man regardless of if he was owned or not. He was considered analogous to cattle and had no rights or protections.

American slavery was simply inequality, and really had very little to do with owning people.

Sorry for laughing, but, lol. Now you're just running off into lala land. Have fun there.

Re:Slavery?

[cwsumner]

He sounds more like an "indentured servant" than a slave.

P.S... In America the indentured servents were treated worse than the slaves, because they would be free in a few years!

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

" Maybe that's because I was in the situation, in my late teens, where $75 was the difference between being able to pay my rent or being homeless. "

No. It isn't. It is because you failed to consider that your assumption was false when it lead to a ridiculous conclusion because you were set on trying to make me look ridiculous rather than considering that the greatest likelihood was an error on your part.

Re:Slavery?

[cusco]

You're right, my assumption that your post was complete and held all the information necessary to make your point was false. YOUR assumption that the father has told the teenager "sell your car or you are kicked out of the house" would have been obvious to everyone who doesn't share your life experience was an error on your part. Your assertion that the only reason that anyone would have sold themselves into slavery was because they were under duress to do so is the ridiculous conclusion. There are very clear records from the pre-Civil War period of freed men selling themselves back into slavery in order to buy out their siblings or children, or pay for a farm that the rest of their family could work. Then there are the 'indentured servants' of the Colonial days, slaves in everything but name, who sold their future life in exchange for a ticket to bring their family to the Americas. Your black and white view of slavery is too simplistic to reflect the reality of the times.

Re:Slavery?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"There are very clear records from the pre-Civil War period of freed men selling themselves back into slavery in order to buy out their siblings or children"

The fact that you cannot see how that is duress is all telling. Imagine that someone has kidnapped your wife and children and tells you he will free them if you admit to a murder you did not commit. By your reasoning, if you do so, you did so by your own free will when in fact you did so under duress.

"Your black and white view of slavery is too simplistic to reflect the reality of the times."

I see what you did there. Black and White / view of slavery. Ha Ha. Just accept that you have no idea what duress is, and move on with your life.

Re:Slavery?

[cusco]

Didn't see the pun until I had already posted. Oh, well.

People could be born into slavery, it wasn't a voluntary action by another party like a kidnapping. A better comparison would be if someone's sibling's kidneys were failing. If they donate a kidney to their sibling are they doing so under duress? I suspect that you're going to say 'yes', which I would only do if you consider social pressure to be coercion.

Re:Slavery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your undsrstanding is the same as mine--(micklinux)

Egads!

[ackthpt]

This incuded his relationship with his now ex-girlfriend, who became a shareholder activist over the issue of whether or not he should have a vasectomy.

Talk about a Directors Cut!

Re:Egads!

[LynnwoodRooster]

She doesn't want him to dilute his stock...

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, whetever, I don't know if he's bone-dense are clever like a fox

Maybe because your comprehension of the English language is utterly beyond repair from the looks of that.

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

She was in favor?

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Re:Egads!

[Anonymous Coward]

but so much for making income via regular sperm bank deposits...

Your parents were your original shareholders?

[nettling139]

Does this make your parents your original shareholders? Or was that pre-IPO?

This man

[WilyCoder]

This man defines the word 'sellout'.

Re:This man

[cultiv8]

He put up 100,000 shares of himself and didn't even sell 1000. I think failed entrepreneur is a better description.

Re:This man

[h4rr4r]

And they only cost $11.

I would love to buy a huge chunk, if he let me vote on more interesting things, or better yet let me propose what we are voting on.

Re:This man

[Ravaldy]

What he did is dumb but what is worst is that people bought in. Just tells you where our priorities lie.

Re:This man

[DerekLyons]

He sold so few initially because he kept a huge chunk of treasury stock and limited not only the buyer pool but also the purchase window. So, your description is based on (very) faulty assumptions.

Re:This man

[briancox2]

He's not whoring himself any less than a reality-tv "star". Isn't this pretty much the same sort of agreement you make to be in areality tv show?

Douche

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy was on the Today show this morning. Total douche bag.

The Unincorporated Man

[wompa]

A great read by Dani Kollin and Eytan Kollin about the distant future where everyone is incorporated and the one man who isn't. It might have been helpful if this guy had read that before his IPO.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Esther Schindler]

I agree. The moment I saw this, I thought immediately of The Unincorporated Man. The tale-telling isn't perfect, but the world-building is scary-believable. Especially since we now have an example of someone actually doing this!

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[cusco]

This was actually a fairly popular tax dodge in the 1970s. Incorporate yourself, mark your paycheck as corporate revenue, make your house and car corporate property, chalk up their costs as corporate expenses, and pay yourself a small stipend for living expenses from the corporation. Since corporate taxes were so much lower than personal income tax someone with a fairly good job could save quite a bit of money. Too many middle class people were taking advantage of it though, so that got axed during the Reagan bAdministration.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Esther Schindler]

Cool. I never heard of that. I knew someone in the early 80s -- a weird friend of a weird friend -- who instead turned himself into a Church, since religious organizations didn't have to pay taxes (or as much of them). I suppose it came from the same intent.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought about this also. Wonder if he inspired the book, it was published 2009 after he did his share sale.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[tnk1]

Considering all the trouble Scientology had with the IRS in getting non-profit status, I am surprised that worked for an individual. Granted Scientology did get to become non-profit eventually, but they at least have a set of beliefs and a number of adherents. As well as a lot of money and lawyers to get the IRS to see their way.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Esther Schindler]

I had a similar thought at the time. But I wasn't going to pick a fight with the guy over it. He had the bright light of fervor in his eye, and it was clear that I wouldn't change his mind.

I've no idea what happened to the dude. And I stopped being friends with the sort-of-weird friend 20 years ago, so now we'll never find out.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Anonymous Coward]

It was a running joke for a while on the 'Barny Miller' sitcom in the '70s. I asked my dad about it, and he explained it. No one that we knew was incorporated, but his brother, an industrial insurance agent, knew several people who were.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Anonymous Coward]

A good read, though I didn't like the ending. It was as if someone said "Quick, we need to publish the book, end it".

Probably the publisher's shareholders.

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[Anonymous Coward]

A good read, though I didn't like the ending. It was as if someone said "Quick, we need to publish the book, end it".

So it's by Neal Stephenson, you say?

Re:The Unincorporated Man

[ltrand]

http://www.theunincorporatedman.com/ The book started off well, had some great, original concepts and ideas, but the characters were flat and the writing was..ok. The big problem I had was the reasoning behind many character actions was "just because". Or they build up a series of actions to just then reverse themselves, and the big motivation reveal, "I like messing around". While promising to explore some meaty issues, it never actually did that. However there is one particular scene involving a family in the book that I still have nightmares about. I actually had to step away from the book for about a week before I could pick it up again. It was tasteful, well done, and really advanced the story, and was the one real example of how well the authors could have done if they explained the other motivations in similar ways. It actually worked in making me question and change some views that I had before.

It's a publicity stunt

[rsilvergun]

and a funny way to say he borrowed a bit of money. :P. I think upstart.com was mentioned later too. So long as we keep laws in place to give borrowers leverage that's all it'll ever be.

That said, the recent trends in bankruptcy law that make it impossible to discharge debt unless you're rich, plus judges finding debtors in contempt of court for not paying and jailing them (aka debtors prisons 2.0) have me scared. This is all in America of course. We need to start breaking down the excesses of the protestant work ethic. Work ethics are good, but they can also be manipulated and abused.

Re:It's a publicity stunt

[Sarten-X]

...bankruptcy law that make it impossible to discharge debt unless you're rich...

Well... good. Debt means you owe somebody, and you're not paying yet. Bankruptcy means you won't ever be able to pay them back. Discharging should be avoided in all cases where there's even a remote chance that someone can pay what they owe.

Of course, the "rich" get special treatment, with a reason. "Rich" people often have others depending heavily on their solvency, moreso than the average person, whose bankruptcy would cost a few bigger companies their credits. The bigger someone's budget, the more likely they are the main source of income for others... and those others' livelihoods must be considered when resolving a bankruptcy. The wealthy individual may escape bankruptcy with a decent amount of net worth still intact, but likely held inaccessibly to avoid screwing over the people who depend on them.

...plus judges finding debtors in contempt of court for not paying and jailing them (aka debtors prisons 2.0)...

"Contempt of court" means there's a court order they're disobeying. That means the person has already gone through bankruptcy, and has worked out a plan to repay their debts, then just didn't do it. In addition to their original debt agreement, and any reorganization agreements during bankruptcy, they've now also failed the court's last attempt to let them work their way out. Terribly sad and all, but how many more agreements do we have to let people break before they get more than a slap on the wrist?

...have me scared.

What scares me is the notion that debt should be easily escapable. I understand that Lady Luck has a cruel sense of humor, and sometimes society really should release someone from their burdens, but the recent tendency has been to treat bankruptcy as a get-out-of-trouble-free card, and debt is a free pass to spend one's younger years partying on someone else's dime.

Re:It's a publicity stunt

[Maxo-Texas]

Our easily escapable debt is one reason the american economy has grown faster than european economies.

Once you completely wipe out in america, you could restart. It enabled americans to wipe out multiple times and take bold gambles. While a majority might just fail, enough succeeded to benefit the rest of society tremendously.

In Europe, once you wiped out once, you were done. It was very risky to wipe out and to take bold gambles.

Re:It's a publicity stunt

[stymy]

Yeah, but there's downsides to risky gambling like that too. Many families in Europe have been rich, have been running businesses for centuries, and are likely to keep doing so for the foreseeable future. While greater social inertia has its downsides, it does tend to lead to greater stability. Yes, Europe has its problems right now, but I'd bet in 100 years they will still be in good shape, at least countries like Germany, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian ones, while who knows how the USA will be.

Re:It's a publicity stunt

[Vitriol Angst]

I have to agree.

What would be COOL, is if credit card debt were looked at the same way as you and I speculating on the stock market. In fact, the bank knows more about you than we know about some company we invest in.

If you and I pick wrong, we lose money on a stock -- so why can't we just say; if someone doesn't pay back a credit card, the only recourse of the credit card company is that they can NOT give them more credit. That would solve the situation where my dog gets 0 interest for 3 month offers with a page of lawyer type.

Nobody is forcing banks to give people credit -- so the banks should not be able to use the law to GET MONEY back from those they gave credit -- they already can club you with a bad credit rating, after all.

Either that, or we should get guaranteed stock performance - and the banks can pay if Apple or IBM shares lose 50% of value -- it's about the same racket they have going so it must be fair.

Re:It's a publicity stunt

[Maxo-Texas]

That's actually about how the law is now (in america). You are only liable for unsecured debts which you take after it is clear you are going to go bankrupt.

Student debt is treated differently only due to laws passed very recently in the 1990's.

The businesses are pushing hard but so far only in a few edge cases can you go to jail for unpaid debt.

majority vote

[Anonymous Coward]

He should have kept 51% of the shares for himself.
Besides, how is this even legal?
I'm pretty sure they have no recourse when he doesn't do what they tell him to.
A judge might order him to hand the money back, but he can't be ordered to do things to his body against his will.

how legal is this? and what happens to shear holde

[Anonymous Coward]

how legal is this? and what happens to shear holders down the road???

A least we have a price

[Krneki]

So, this is how much his life is worth, 100.000$.

Re:A least we have a price

[Opportunist]

The better question is what happens when the shareholders decide to liquidate the company.

its called debt or labor

[Billly Gates]

You give up your time and are paid based on the value you provide. The more you give up of yourself the more you have.

If it is approved before you provide then its debt. The investor gets more of you in time exchanged from someone called money. Investors dont care about your personal lives. Only cash.

So go work and do the startup on the side

GPS Tracking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if his 'shareholders' would go so far as to implant a GPS tracking beacon in him so they could always know where their 'property' is?

Find out who your real friends are

[femtobyte]

This is a great way to find out who your real friends are:

the folks who respect you enough as a free human being not to *buy control of your life* for their profit.

Re:Find out who your real friends are

[gstoddart]

the folks who respect you enough as a free human being not to *buy control of your life* for their profit.

Sorry, but he set himself up so he doesn't actually have voting shares, and entirely put his life in the hands of his, er, 'investors'.

Sounds like a case of 'epic stupid' to me.

Re:Find out who your real friends are

[Cro Magnon]

But, shouldn't you be able to trust your friends to make decisions for you?

Re:Find out who your real friends are

[gstoddart]

In an abstract, ideal world, maybe. Or at least consider their advice.

But if you really think turning over your life decisions to a committee of your friends is going to be a good idea, you deserve something like this.

Re:Find out who your real friends are

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you really think turning over your life decisions to a committee of your friends is going to be a good idea, you deserve something like this.

Yes, you do. Why then did we do the Affordable Care Act, where an appointed group will be changed with "cost control" and start deciding what care will be given and when...

We then proceeded to VOTE this same guy back into office.... We deserve what is coming by your logic.

Chainsaw Al

[puddingebola]

Whatever he does, he better make sure he never lets Chainsaw Al Dunlap near him. He'll saw him up and sell off the body parts as assets.

Would be worth it if you could vote on more stuff.

[h4rr4r]

I would buy many shares if I could vote on more important stuff. Since they are only $11 and it appears ~100 shares is enough to control a decision I would be a buyer when he offers up more control.

I also hope he enjoys eating broken glass and putting tattoos on his face.

Orwell, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

"Under the spreading chestnut tree I sold you and you sold me"

Re:how legal is this? and what happens to shear ho

[skitchen8]

I suspect they continue to hold shears. Where do people that are holding shears come into this article in the first place?

Re:how legal is this? and what happens to shear ho

[SecurityGuy]

Shear holders? Is this about the vasectomy?

Horror Story

[Anonymous Coward]

He seems to be happy with his decision, so I guess I can't feel TOO sorry for him. Still, the article made me feel as anxious as reading a horror story. I hope the best for him. All that I could think about was that one day, this poor man will need a philanthropic investor to buy his life back for him. (Either that, I guess, or he'll decide by fiat to break his vow not to vote with his controlling share.)

Gimmick, nothing more.

[SecurityGuy]

It's just a gimmick. It's entertaining, and so catches the news (I think it was on Today...today). It's also basically a dumb idea. The guy is a poster child for the idea that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He might be able to roll this into a movie and make a little money (Catfish, anyone?) but other than that, there's nothing to see here. Move along.

Responsibility, what's that?

[Glires]

This sounds like an overly complicated way for someone to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions and decisions.

Keep Portland Weird

[DarthBling]

I'm not surprised that this guy is from Portland, OR. We got so many weird people here. sigh....

From the website, it says one of the votes was whether or not this guys should become a vegetarian. 453 votes for yes, 288 for no. Ah Portland, you never disappoint.

Re:Keep Portland Weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep Portland Weird

Get your own damned slogan. -- Austin, TX

I read that book too

[dave562]

It was good and thought provoking.

http://www.theunincorporatedman.com/

"A brilliant industrialist named Justin Cord awakes from a 300-year cryonic suspension into a world that has accepted an extreme form of market capitalism. It's a world in which humans themselves have become incorporated and most people no longer own a majority of themselves."

The nature of financial products

[Beeftopia]

Financial products are logical constructs. Virtual products. Like objects in an online game which people buy and sell.

The financial world depends on logical constructs. Currency, the base of the financial world, is a logical construct. Slips of paper to which people ascribe value. Gold is the same way. One cannot eat gold, wear it, drink it, shelter under it, use it to bind wounds or cure ailments. But to many (most) it has "value." Currency is a durable construct because it makes people's lives easier, and improves their standard of living.

Stocks ("shares of ownership") are an older financial product. So are bonds. Futures are bets. Then you get into the myriad financial products/bets and their derivatives on which today's global financial system is based.

1) "A financial product is about as conceptual as you can get,” says Wilson Ervin, a senior adviser at Credit Suisse. “You just need paper and ink.”-- The Economist magazine

2) "In an even more blunt description, Tourre calls the CDOs he produced "intellectual masturbation" and likens himself to Dr. Frankenstein. "When I think that I had some input into the creation of this product (which by the way is a product of pure intellectual masturbation, the type of thing which you invent telling yourself: 'well, what if we created a 'thing', which has no purpose, which is absolutely conceptual and highly theoretical and which nobody knows how to price?")" -- CNN / Money

"Financial Innovation" consists of two things:

1) Creation of new virtual products / logical constructs.

2) Methods by which one can entice others to take on more debt.

Paul Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the only beneficial financial innovation of the last 30 years was the ATM. However, the ATM is not a financial innovation, but a technological one. So that leaves a dim legacy of recent financial innovation.

I'm all for financial innovation just as long as it doesn't lead to "financial pollution" - public costs. Like a tannery which dumps effluent into a river. The tannery keeps the profit and the public bears the costs. The concept is known in the financial sector as "privatize the profits, socialize the losses." In recent years, the financial sector has been able to successfully privatize its profits, yet push the costs onto the public. This is done by government insurance of private debt, and outright rescues and bailouts.

In any regulation of the financial sector, the key I think is to make sure that losses are limited to the participants in the transaction.

This fellow - well if he is able to make money, bravo. If he and his shareholders lose money, the laws regulating the financial sector should make sure that the losses are limited to participants in the transaction, and not imposed on the public.

Re:The nature of financial products

[turp182]

Great post, to me financial innovation is defined as "when one or more parties take advantage of legal edge-cases (loopholes) to their benefit". This happens a lot in the insurance industry.

Now to nit-pick, but with a comedic approach...

You said: "One cannot eat gold, wear it, drink it, shelter under it, use it to bind wounds or cure ailments."

* Eat Gold - Gold flaked ice cream: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-08-05/world/35270313_1_ice-cream-iranians-oil-windfall
* Wear Gold - Seriously, this is extremely common...
* Drink Gold: Goldschläger
* Shelter Under Gold: http://www.barnettassociates.net/a-house-made-of-gold-where-to-see-it/
* Bind Wounds or Cure Ailments (medical use in general): http://ezinearticles.com/?Medical-Uses-of-Gold&id=3234400

Yeah, they are mostly edge cases, but searching for them was fun...

Thanks again for the post, it was well spoken and I don't have karma at this time.

Re:The nature of financial products

[slew]

An interesting tirade on financial products. Sadly, many human endeavors suffer from similar limitations/pitfalls: computer programming, law and torts, diplomacy/war.

Each of these virtual constructs are created from the human mind, have ephemerial existance (outside of some recorded media like paper and ink), and have the potential for serious impact on the public at large when things go wrong at a large scale.

At the end of the day, human social institutions are all that hold up these virtual constructs of our collective imagination and sadly are the only actual backstops when these creations of ours minds get out of our control.

People have gone off the rail about all sorts of virtual constructs: various tomes on object oriented or functional programming, sql/nosql, trials, rules of evidence, incarceration/recidivism rates, death penalty, liability, insurance, patents, copyrights, treaties, arms control, scanctions, no-fly-zones, etc, etc... mostly about what is wrong about our creations of the mind, but at the end of the day, the crap like "privatize the profits, socialize the losses" are really just a reflection of the later.

Most folks desire living in a social construct which is not too far removed from their current situation, thus anything that rocks the boat must be done in a revolutionary manner. Perhaps this sums up my sentiment on this matter...

Re:The nature of financial products

[Anonymous Coward]

People have been wearing gold ever since people knew what gold was.

Re:The nature of financial products

[Anonymous Coward]

"Currency, the base of the financial world, is a logical construct. Slips of paper to which people ascribe value. Gold is the same way. One cannot eat gold, wear it, drink it, shelter under it, use it to bind wounds or cure ailments. But to many (most) it has "value.""

Gold is a finite resource and precious metal. It has other uses, such as electronics, outside of using it for currency. In that fact it not like a slip of paper.

Re:The nature of financial products

[Anonymous Coward]

Like a tannery which dumps effluent into a river.

That's an externality, which affects a specific portion of the public. No-one was ever going to buy it so it can't be a loss. A 'socialize the losses' rescue is just that: Welfare to a business spending more money than it is receiving, usually triggered by a cash-flow problem.

Re:The nature of financial products

[Beeftopia]

* Wear Gold - Seriously, this is extremely common...

Good point: Indian Businessman Dazzles The World With His $230k Shirt Made Of Real Gold

Re:The nature of financial products

[WGFCrafty]

We shall have evolved as a species when value stops meaning dollar signs and means quality and compassion. Two non-virtual humanistic constructs.

In my opinion anyway.

Anyone wanna buy shares in my idea?

Re:The nature of financial products

[WGFCrafty]

Uh, I mean virtual differently, obviously you can't eat quality, but eating can stem from compassion. In India, sages would tell parables or give sermons. If people liked your wisdom they fed you. Spiritual enlightenment by means of natural selection. =-)

Re:The nature of financial products

[turp182]

That's the one thing I didn't bother searching for, great find.

The Unincorporated Man

[fredrated]

Someone gave me a copy a couple of years ago (a galley proof I think) about a future where shares are issued at birth for everyone, and what happens when someone shows up who is not incorporated.
A good read, though I didn't like the ending. It was as if someone said "Quick, we need to publish the book, end it".

Re:Would be worth it if you could vote on more stu

[pspahn]

Eating glass isn't that dangerous... you just have to chew for awhile until it turns back into gritty bits.

Just silly performance art

[sirwired]

This was kind of funny, but from reading the article it looks like he took it way too seriously. (And it seemed he frequently used "shareholder value" or "shareholder votes" as a good excuse for doing what he wanted to do instead of doing what his girlfriend wanted him to do.)

Interesting social experiment

[GodfatherofSoul]

And, potentially could put a lot of money in his pocket. I'd be more interested in how the shareholders use their powers.

Re:Interesting social experiment

[_UnderTow_]

So, kind of like a Neal Stephenson book? (disclaimer: Cryptonomicon is probably my favorite book ever)

Re:Interesting social experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice gimmick. Guy wants this to become public, he will probably make $100k+ soon and then just quit before people realize they paid for nothing.

Hot stock tip!

[slashmydots]

Invest in me! lol. I'm working 25 hours, zero benefits, as head IT manager. I do website design, printing, graphics and photoshop, server maintenance, security, hardware, software testing and deployment, long-term planning, smartphones, tablets, and for 1/3 the local industry norm for pay. This market has nowhere to go but up, my friends! And I might risk insider trading but I just beat 89% of Tek Systems employees on a programming assessment so they're likely to make me a better offer any day now. Buy your SlashMyDots (not my real name, lol) stocks now!

Re:Would be worth it if you could vote on more stu

[wisnoskij]

But it is never pleasant.

RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ts hilarious, don't waste your time on the comments for once.

Prepare your Anus!

[Lehk228]

I'm pretty sure everyone who bought shares is guilty of Human Trafficking

Re:Prepare your Anus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, I do hope buying and selling votes or paying someone to register for a party is illegal in the US.

Re:Prepare your Anus!

[artfulshrapnel]

Ah, but they didn't PAY him to vote: they paid for the privilege of being his life advisers, and he is simply following their advice. (Or at least that's what he'll say in court once they vote on his possible responses)

Sounds like he already lost

[Anonymous Coward]

His ex-girlfriend McCormack stayed with him for FIVE YEARS? I can't think of any woman who would put up with such a relationship-draining experiment such as this. Sounds like he lost a good one.

Wow

[rsilvergun]

you put a lot of effort into a post full of hate for the poor :P. Are you really that ignorant of why people file for bankruptcy or do you get paid to spew that nonsense? A few points:

. 1. Bankruptcy is basically 8 years without credit. If you're a poor person that's a nightmare. No house and no car, both of which you need.

2. The lender should be expected to accept risk. It's funny how capitalists get shield from market risks by guys like you but workers are expected to suck it down. Workers pay for their masters bad decisions with lower standards of living.

3. Usury loans quickly become slavery. You're not really free if someone controls your access to food/shelter/health care.

4. People filing for bankruptcy have little money. They often can't afford the legal representation they need to avoid being taken advantage of. If they do hire a lawyer the settlement negotiated is often worse than the original loan terms. That's because there are hundreds of bankruptcy firms that just take your money and then take the first offer by the court. They pray on people trying to keep their heads above water by working 80 hours a week. I've known several people in that situation.

5. Nice to see you ending your post with the right wing's "Imma gettin' robbed by da poors" narrative that has absolutely no basis in fact. Well, I suppose giving all our money to 1% of the population WILL keep those damn poor people from stealing from you, if only because you'll have nothing to steal.

The way I like to put it is this: you're trying to get me to believe that a little kid with a sandwich that his mommy didn't pay for brought America to it's knees financially.

Re:Wow

[RichMeatyTaste]

Bankruptcy is not 8 years without credit. You may have a year or two of few options, and will probably need to setup a secured credit card (credit line equal to the cash you provide the issuer) initially to show you can be responsible, but you will be able to do just about anything you want a couple of years after filing. Yes your rates will be higher, but if you pay your bills on time the penalty will be less over time until the bankruptcy falls off your credit report entirely.
In addition, if you can reaffirm on existing debt for those items which you need to keep (car, house).
My problem? People who got into debt for stupid things. No sympathy for them, all kinds of sympathy for those who have medical bills, family tragedy, etc.

Re:Wow

[moeinvt]

" 2. The lender should be expected to accept risk. It's funny how capitalists get shield from market risks..."

You're talking about the case when the government and Federal Reserve come along and "shield" certain wealthy elites from the consequences of their actions. That's not capitalism. It's called "central planning" and it's the antithesis of capitalism and free markets.

In a genuine system of capitalism, the lender and borrower would both assume the risks. If both parties endure a loss when a loan goes bad, it sets up a strong disincentive for making "bad" loans in the first place.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what perfect world you come from, i'd love to visit sometime.

My mother is going through a Bankruptcy right now. Her second, as a matter of fact. The first happened because my father suddenly became very ill, and ended up dying after 5 years going in and out of hospitals. Cancer is a real bitch, but nothing like the freaking leeches in the health world who demand she still pay back those debts, even after the bankrupcy. She was stuck with a house and car payment she couldn't afford (Sadly dad didn't have any life insurance that was worth anything..lesson learned, I hold several policies myself now).

She ended up losing her state job due to budget cuts, and lost the house. Her health has degraded to the point that she cant get another job, and is on disability. When dad was sick she went back to school to earn a degree in the heathcare field, but because of the bad hip cant work. They're threating to take her disability money to pay for her student loads, because bankruptcy wont clear you of that debt.

She's homeless, living in a motel. She gets 1000 a month from disability and 500 a month from my fathers old job. The school loans want to take 900 a month from her, leaving her with 600 bucks a month for rent/healthcare/food/gas/bills. The difference between someone who went into debt for a stupid reason, vs my mother? None. You cant write a law that would affect her any different than from someone else.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If both parties endure a loss when a loan goes bad, it sets up a strong disincentive for making "bad" loans in the first place.

BUT BUYING HOUSES YOU COULD NEVER AFFORD IS A HUMAN RIGHT!!11

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a house or car. Rent, and take public transit.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

If I don't need a house or car, and have no way to afford those things, then why do you give me loans for them?

Re:Wow

[Sarten-X]

you put a lot of effort into a post full of hate for the poor :P. Are you really that ignorant of why people file for bankruptcy or do you get paid to spew that nonsense?

Starting off the flames from the start, I see. No, I'm not getting paid to comment on Slashdot, and no, I don't hate the poor, having come pretty damned close to bankruptcy myself. Rather, I hate the people of all economic standings who think that if someone gives them credit they're free to forget about repayment and pass the burden on to the rest of society.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently involved in a bankruptcy lawsuit. A guy owes me a few thousand dollars, that went into buying his second sports car (or maybe his boat, or both... we're not certain) rather than paying off the back taxes he owed. Meanwhile he owns a business bringing in about a half-million dollars a year.

1. Bankruptcy is basically 8 years without credit. If you're a poor person that's a nightmare. No house and no car, both of which you need.

Not at all. Bankruptcy will stop you from getting new loans for a few years until you establish new credit, but the other poster already covered that. I'll just also point out that a single house and a car are usually protected in bankruptcy, so the debtor isn't left destitute without a means to make a living. This is actually a key detail in my own lawsuit, since the debt went to buy a car (and supposedly his other two cars and boat are actually company assets, he claims).

2. The lender should be expected to accept risk. It's funny how capitalists get shield from market risks by guys like you but workers are expected to suck it down. Workers pay for their masters bad decisions with lower standards of living.

The lenders do accept risk in many ways. First, there's the risk that the loan's interest won't actually outpace inflation, though that's rather unlikely right now. There's the risk that by loaning out money, they don't have the capital they need for a better opportunity later. There's the risk that a borrower might default without bankruptcy, in which case they have to go through foreclosure (which usually costs them more than they get). Then there's the big risk of bankruptcy, where they lose everything loaned out.

About the only time the lenders actually make money is when a loan is (almost) fully paid off or when it's sold to someone else who assumes the risk.

3. Usury loans quickly become slavery. You're not really free if someone controls your access to food/shelter/health care.

And that's why they're illegal in most jurisdictions. There are actually laws regulating what interest may be charged, generally hovering around "expected inflation plus a little bit". Anything higher is usually thrown out immediately in court.

4. People filing for bankruptcy have little money. They often can't afford the legal representation they need to avoid being taken advantage of. If they do hire a lawyer the settlement negotiated is often worse than the original loan terms. That's because there are hundreds of bankruptcy firms that just take your money and then take the first offer by the court. They pray on people trying to keep their heads above water by working 80 hours a week. I've known several people in that situation.

...and that's bad, I guess. I don't see the relevance to the original comment, but let's continue anyway. It's a slow day at the office.

So your argument is that we should be able to throw out more debt because evil companies take advantage of a difficult legal system? Personally I'd rather just reform the legal system. Maybe we could make some sort of public repository with resources for handling one's bankruptcy, where people could learn how to figure out what they can afford... We might even be able to incorporate it with other sources of knowledge, perhaps even with some trained

Re:Wow

[rsilvergun]

1. Your basic arguments are hostile to the poor, or your ignorant. One of the two. People aren't going into debt because of lavish lifestyles. They're going into debt because adjusted for inflation they've lost ground every year for 30 years. You make less than your father did.

2. Lenders accept no risk. They bundle bad loans together until they're so big that letting them go would wreck the economy, then demand 'Austerity' from the poor to pay for it. This is what really happened. What's more, they've been doing it about every 10 years since I was born. Remember the S&L scandal? As for the loan and inflation, easy to deal with. Just lobby congress to raise minimum payments. Worked too.

3. These laws don't matter if they're not enforced. There are places you can get 50% credit cards. Also, see point # 1 of this post. After 30 years of declining wages it's difficult if not impossible for anyone to get out of debt long enough to build up any wealth.

4. My argument is that debtors need leverage over lenders or the system quickly breaks down. In the absence of that leverage (bankruptcy) there's no incentive for the people who own you and me (re: George Carlin) not to return to debtors prisons and 16-tons. It's the same crap argument I hear all the time that says we should get rid of regulations and safety nets. That you don't need it anymore. That things are better. Safer. There's other ways. You ignore the fact that there's a reason why people were given the power of bankruptcy in the first place. It's a careful balance, and we just farked it right up.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

You cant write a law that would affect her any different than from someone else.

There actually is one. She would have to had to execute it early on though.

Re:Wow

[isorox]

Sorry you live in such a sucky country. I suggest moving out of your corrupt hellhole (Russia?) to somewhere humane.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it's worse than central planning.

Central planning would be the Federal Reserve giving a trillion dollars to the banks and telling them to use it in a certain way.

What we have is the Federal Reserve giving the banks money and the banks doing whatever with it.

Somehow, we've turned the capitalist country that was the far and away the strongest economy in the world into something managed worse than communism.

Re:Wow

[Opportunist]

Doesn't sound like Russia, but another Superpower comes to mind...

Re:Wow

[Opportunist]

Not only doing whatever they want with it, but also reassuring them that they'll cover them if the loans go bad. If they had at least left that bit out, we wouldn't be in the crap we're in right now.

And comparing how banks are run vs. how communist countries are run, the communists sure look like economy masterminds. A German bank recently burned through a loan of a few billion within 2 weeks, a similar loan kept the GDR afloat for over ten years.

Re:Wow

[Opportunist]

I hope you're not talking about public transit in the US, outside of large cities they give the term "suck" a completely new definition. Not that it was any better in a metropolis. When you are used to European public transport, the US sure looks like a third world country.

Re:Wow

[Opportunist]

Oh, you cannot uphold statement one as an absolute. If you're making a few millions a day, you sure make more than your dad did. For everyone else, though, you're right.

Re:Wow

[Sarten-X]

1. Your basic arguments are hostile to the poor, or your ignorant. One of the two.

False dichotomy. You could simply be factually wrong. Let's look at the facts...

People aren't going into debt because of lavish lifestyles. They're going into debt because adjusted for inflation they've lost ground every year for 30 years. You make less than your father did.

[citation needed]. Not about the inflation bit, but rather about that being why people are going into debt. Fact is, adjusted for inflation, people are still 5 times deeper in debt than they were in 1975.

2. Lenders accept no risk.

Maybe you conveniently missed how many banks went bankrupt recently. That's an awful lot of damage for "no risk".

They bundle bad loans together until they're so big that letting them go would wreck the economy, then demand 'Austerity' from the poor to pay for it. This is what really happened.

And nobody's saying they didn't. Of course, the question of whether it was legal or not is still up for debate, and as of a few days ago was still under investigation by the US DOJ. Of course, you're free to jump to your conclusions... just recognize they aren't facts.

Remember the S&L scandal? As for the loan and inflation, easy to deal with. Just lobby congress to raise minimum payments.

Um, yeah. That's rather the whole concept of inflation. The same about of wealth requires more money, so paying back the same amount of your loan requires more actual money. Now, a fair outcome would be to also raise wages to meet the higher needs, but Congress failed there.

3. These laws don't matter if they're not enforced. There are places you can get 50% credit cards.

[citation needed]. The highest I've heard of in the states is 40% for an unsecured credit card immediately after bankruptcy... which puts the highest risk on the lender.

Also, see point # 1 of this post. After 30 years of declining wages it's difficult if not impossible for anyone to get out of debt long enough to build up any wealth.

Alright, let's look at point 1... Adjusted for inflation, people are still going deeper into debt. It's not a matter of building up wealth, it's a matter of spending beyond means routinely.

4. My argument is that debtors need leverage over lenders or the system quickly breaks down. In the absence of that leverage (bankruptcy) there's no incentive for the people who own you and me (re: George Carlin) not to return to debtors prisons and 16-tons.

Similarly, lenders need leverage over debtors, or the lenders can't expect any safety in lending. In the absence of that leverage (court-ordered payment plans), there's no incentive for the people who borrow money to pay back what they took.

It's the same crap argument I hear all the time that says we should get rid of regulations and safety nets. That you don't need it anymore. That things are better. Safer. There's other ways. You ignore the fact that there's a reason why people were given the power of bankruptcy in the first place.

And yours is the same crap argument I hear all the time that we need to help the little guy at the expense of Big Credit or whoever the bad guy is this week. That Big Credit is going to abuse us all into submission, because we're all forced to take their high-interest loans to buy the overpriced luxury goods that we need so badly. You ignore the fact that defaulting on loans is the reason high interest rates are charged in the first place.

It's a careful balance, and we just farked it right up.

Well, you got

Re:Wow

[Cederic]

1. Bankruptcy is basically 8 years without credit. If you're a poor person that's a nightmare. No house and no car, both of which you need.

You can acquire a car without credit. It may be a pretty shit car, but if you can't afford to buy one then you can't afford to run it anyway.

there are hundreds of bankruptcy firms that just take your money and then take the first offer by the court. They pray on people trying to keep their heads above water by working 80 hours a week

If you become bankrupt that's no excuse for being stupid, failing to research your options, adopting the best approach and negotiating the best possible terms.

People can become bankrupt for many reasons. It doesn't stop them living a good life, and it sure as shit doesn't excuse them making bad decisions afterwards.

Forgive my utter lack of sympathy but they should take some responsibility.

Re:Wow

[Vitriol Angst]

I just want to say; "Kudos, your thread was f-ing awesome."

There are a lot of ways to say that the system isn't necessarily fair -- but you hit the major points with clarity and not too much fluff.

Slavery and Exploitation

[cervesaebraciator]

Indeed many did choose to sell themselves into slavery, or their children, in order to secure a better life than they could make on their own. Slaves very often lived better off than the unskilled poor, and they weren't likely to be found starving on the street. To say they weren't as exploited as in modern times, however, is something I would hesitate to do. I suppose it depends on your definition of exploitation. In the end, the pater familias had the power of life and death over his household. He could even kill one of his own sons (though this was rarely done in later times), so a slave who was on his bad side much to fear. Sure, some bought their way to freedom or even pleased their masters so much that freedom was given them, but this depended entirely on the good nature of the owners who might just as likely work them to death in the mines. If you've ever heard those stories of the "good" slave owners in the U.S., whose slaves would willingly fight for them or were freed, you will recognize that they're exceptions used to justify a broadly exploitive system. The same applies to Roman slavery. Give that much power to any person and the same results will always show.

Re:Slavery and Exploitation

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it the main difference was in the accounting.

In Rome slaves were due a salary, and a slave could expect that if they were wise with that salary and did a good job they would eventually earn their freedom.

In the U.S. slaves were not given a salary and their ability to own money was at their master's discretion. There was no reasonable expectation of ever being freed.

Bowie bonds?

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

The first thing that came to mind when I read the title was when David Bowie sold bonds, based on future royalties. He took that one time payment to buy some of his discography back. Not bad for him.

But... James Brown tried the same thing, and it ended not as well. There were lawsuits about what the value should have been. This is now literally a textbook case of how hard an oddball bond valuation is. It went all the way to the NY Supreme Court (posthumously, for Brown).

Back to this case... valuation will be very difficult. Did he get value for the amount of control he gave up? His health suffered (the sleep experiment) he lost control of his life (control, or the perception of control is very important to the psyche). Was it worth it, outside of being a neat experiment?

This was one of the most absurd

[SlippyToad]

This was one of the most absurd glibertarian experiments in "free-market" bullshit I've ever read. I did not finish the story. Stopped when we had shareholders considering whether Merril's life insurance policy belonged to them or not.

I hope Mr. Merrill likes his philosophies. They are fucking ruining his life.

Re:This was one of the most absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

I strongly suspect he does, I think the main reason he's done it is to abrogate his own responsibility for his actions. His vasectomoy is a prime example, he clearly wanted it, his partner didn't he puts it to a vote in the hope that he can get his way without appearing to be responsible.

Am I the only one...

[JeanCroix]

FTFA:

Merrill debuted the Romance Advisory Committee site in June 2012. Each interested shareholder received a password and could monitor Merrill’s romantic activity while anonymously voting candidates up or down. There was also a “candidate referral form” in case anybody wanted to suggest a match. ... [The shareholders] gave a 97 percent approval rating to a guy referred to as Jordon California. Feeling the weight of investor expectations, Merrill spent a drunken night “fooling around” with him. [emphasis mine]

If that's Merrill's orientation, no foul. But if it isn't, and he did it anyway...? Yikes.

There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[argStyopa]

...and this just proves it.

What seems, theoretically, to be a clever 'experiment' in market capitalism ends up, essentially, to be an exercise in voluntary slavery.

"Soon after the split, Merrill received a $100,000 life insurance policy as a new benefit at his customer-service job. Shareholders quickly decided that in the event of Merrillâ(TM)s death, the policy should be distributed among them. It opened up the possibility that, in financial terms, Merrill might be a more valuable asset if he were liquidated. Investors who had no personal connection to Merrill might be tempted to vote for him to jump off a bridge."

That's hilarious, because if, in fact, he was honestly following through with this experiment (and had, apparently, neglected to leave himself an out-clause), they should have had him jump off a bridge.

It's perhaps an illustrative lesson for CEOs of private companies who are considering taking their companies public. For a relatively small financial reward, you lose control of very important things.

Re:There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

"Soon after the split, Merrill received a $100,000 life insurance policy as a new benefit at his customer-service job. Shareholders quickly decided that in the event of Merrillâ(TM)s death, the policy should be distributed among them. It opened up the possibility that, in financial terms, Merrill might be a more valuable asset if he were liquidated. Investors who had no personal connection to Merrill might be tempted to vote for him to jump off a bridge."

That would be a fascinating legal question: does jumping off a bridge count as suacide and invalidate the life insurance? Does voting that he should jump off a bridge constitute attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or in the event that the motion carries murder 1?

Re:There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

That's hilarious, because if, in fact, he was honestly following through with this experiment (and had, apparently, neglected to leave himself an out-clause), they should have had him jump off a bridge.

Most life insurance policies do not pay out in the case of suicide.

Re:There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[frinkster]

That's hilarious, because if, in fact, he was honestly following through with this experiment (and had, apparently, neglected to leave himself an out-clause), they should have had him jump off a bridge.

Committing suicide is usually illegal in US states (not that they can put you in jail after you are dead). US contract law cannot bind you to illegal acts, thus the shareholders cannot force him to do it regardless of how honestly he was following the experiment.

Re:There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perhaps an illustrative lesson for CEOs of private companies who are considering taking their companies public. For a relatively small financial reward, you lose control of very important things.

Corollary: If your company is worth more liquidated and its assets returned to the shareholders, you're not a very good CEO. Maybe it's time for the founder to exit or at least hire someone more competent.

Re:There's a fine line between clever and stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

That and the life insurance probably doesn't cover suicide

The only problem I see...

[sonnejw0]

... was that he set the IPO price way too low. That, or his policy on voting rights for shareholders was way off base.

Re:The only problem I see...

[ak3ldama]

As opposed to facebook which set the share prices way too high and gave no one else proper voting rights... this guys is a total head case. He should just absolve it all, give what money back he can, and move on. I got through most of page one but I do not even know if I want to read the rest to see if he redeems himself in any way.

No way!

[lengel]

This has to be some sort of early April's Fools joke, right? I mean, reading that story was like one stupidly outrageous instance after another. It cannot be real. Right? I mean c'mon, this cannot be happening! Nobody is this stupid. Nobody.

No it's not, not really.

[msimm]

Either you work for someone or someone works for you. Names change, things remain the same. ;-)

Re:No it's not, not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

This, either you own the means and bear the risk, or you take your lesser hourly wage.

Re:Would be worth it if you could vote on more stu

[tibman]

Why wait? There are plenty of companies you can buy voting shares in and then cause permanent damage to.

1st thot = harriman from RAHs tMWStM

[Lee_Dailey]

howdy y'all,

the 1st thot i had on reading the title was the RAH story "the man who sold the moon". this ...
The Man Who Sold the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
"
Harriman intends to be on the ship, but the majority owners of the venture object to his presence on the flight; he is too valuable to the company to risk in space. The rocket leaves without Harriman, who "looks as Moses must have looked, when he gazed out over the promised land."
"

always makes me sad when i re-read that story. at least in "requiem" the old, soon-to-die harriman finally got to the moon.

the way other characterss interfered with the harrimans life dream of going to the moon is fairly similar to what this guy seems to have run into. not quite to the same degree, perhaps ... [*grin*]

take care,
lee

I don't know...

[rsilvergun]

Forbes seems to think so. Honestly, just googling for 'Real Wages Drop' brings up more proof than you could ever need/want....

As for individuals, well, in the middle ages every now and then a Knight might make it to vasslehood, but it wasn't the norm.

Re:I don't know...

[Opportunist]

That's ... pretty much what I said? If you're rich, your inflation adjusted income goes up. If you're not, it goes down. I just wonder where that breaking point is, how many millions would you have to have to be earning more than you did 30 years ago?

April fool's joke, right?

[Askmum]

Haha, I read the whole story. This guy is the stupidest guy ever. What was he thinking? This is wat dumb movies are made of. From the first scene you know this is going to end bad. Only he is too stupid to see it.

Or it's an april fool's joke.

Re:Would be worth it if you could vote on more stu

[h4rr4r]

Name some.
I want hilarity to ensue, not just give away the money to top brass. If I can get a crudely drawn phallus tattooed on the CEOs face that would be perfect and worth thousands.