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

What you're doing is spreading missinformation.

by the way :

on the one hand you assume that people cannot divide number, on the other hand you assume that people knows the difference between median and average.
an average is often used in the common language as a substitute for the geometric mean but also the median. Learn your stat : the meme is "mean and median". I invite you to read the first § here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average . Or is wikipedia too biased for your taste?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] ree@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

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

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

Please read my last comment in his entirety.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

Which obviously provides a rough idea of the distribution.

Please read my last comment in his entirety.

Oh I did, it's hilarious.

[–] ree@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

Oh I did, it’s hilarious.

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

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] ree@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

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

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

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

Your title assumed an even distribution ( one employee has 0.0007% of the total shares) . Without more information that is completely misleading^1^

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

yes the first document you linked refute the 1 persons own 51% of the shares. Nonetheless, that doesn't invalidate a scenario where an organized minority owns 75% of the shares removing control of the company from the hands of the workers

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

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

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

[–] ree@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not gonna continue that cyclical dialogue any longer.

There is no factual number of shares distribution amongst employee. My assumption is that as any large corporation a few makes bank and many get the crumbs and it's as good as any.

I'm sure employees are more motivated once they own stock but that's a process you also find in other companies structure and it's probably a well documented incentive. However, HR is not a topic I've interested in.

Have a nice day.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Your assumption is completely baseless, but there's clearly no point continuing this.

Have a nice day.