Split evenly, this would be more than 70,000 USD per employee. Of course, the ownership structure isn’t entirely flat, but (for example) the founder and CEO only has a 0.7% share.
Shouldn’t it be split with every citizen of China?
Why? Huawei is not an SOE.
This was a joke referring to another joke where China calls itself a communist country while employing fascist corporatist policies.
The fascist corporatist policy of sharing profits with employees?
Huawei is not sharing profits with its employees. Huawei is sharing profits with its owners like any privately owned company can do. But the employees happen to be owners because of a company policy which I think is a great one, actually.
China is the fascist corporatist country. Huawei is not China. If China was communist, Huawei would be sharing its profits not only with its own owners, but with all chinese citizens.
And if the US was capitalist, there wouldn’t be restrictions on Canadian aluminum exports.
Oh, wait. The world isn’t black and white. Why is your view?
Why is your view?
Is it?
Are you inferring that the money would be better spent on employees? I don’t necessarily disagree, but will argue:
- The company likely wouldn’t have been able to grow as quickly without the initial capital infusion that incorporating provides
- The employees know what they signed up for and have already agreed on their compensation requirements
- Employees also earn/own stock
- If Huawei wanted to payout gratuitous bonuses to employees rather than shareholders, they could always take their company private
Huawei is employee owned. They are the shareholders.
It’s not equal worker ownership, but the money isn’t just going off to investors.
Inferring doesn’t mean the same thing as implying. They’re kind of complementary, like borrowing versus lending.
The OP may have been implying something, but it looks like you’re inferring something (which may or may not what they’re implying; I don’t care enough to parse that out).
