Instigator / Con

If You Are a Partial Owner of a Company Then You Must Put Effort Into Managing it.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Pro

No information

Round 1
The resolution of this debate is pretty straightforward. All I have to do as con is demonstrate examples of people that own part of a company but do not manage any part of that company. Due to character limitations I shall bring up only one such example each round to describe.

For the first round I would like to bring up the example of worker-owned companies. Worker-owned companies are companies where ownership is held only by employees of said company.

As we all know some employees are managers, but it is also true that some employees are not managers.

Therefore if it is true that:

1) Worker-owned companies are a thing that exist in real life.

2) Less than 100% of employees of a company are managers.

Then it logically follows that in the case of worker-owned companies less than 100% of the owners are managers. In other words less than 100% of that companies owners do anything to manage the company.

I turn the debate over to pro to allow them to try showing one of these two points as false.
2) Less than 100% of employees of a company are managers. 
Are we arguing owners or employees?

Suppose we are talking about workers/employees. Who hires you to not do anything? Because the employers would obviously hire no one when they have a tendency of doing nothing, and stockholders are not employees nor workers, thus no employee would do nothing to keep the company open.

Keen to ask: How are stockholders...employees?

Prove also this: How do you "not do anything for the company" while owning it? By stocks only and only stocks is needed?
Round 2
As pros round one argument just consists of a series of questions I will start by simply answering these questions.

Are we arguing owners or employees?

I made it very clear in round one that I was talking in that instance only about worker-owned companies. In the case of worker-owned companies the owners are the employees by definition.

Who hires you to not do anything?

Hiring someone to not do anything would be a very bad business move for the company so ideally this would not happen.

How are stockholders...employees?

Again (crazy that I have to say this 3 times) in round one I was talking specifically about worker-owned companies. In that case obviously all owners are employees of that company by definition. Some of them are managers, some of them are not.

How do you "not do anything for the company" while owning it?

The resolution is not about whether owners contribute to the company in some way, the resolution is specifically about whether all owners must manage their company.
This is a short one. 

1. No one employs you to do nothing, unless you are self-employed, which you are already your own manager consider you employed yourself.
2. No one employs you to only buy stocks. You can do them yourself but no stock-only-owner are employed because other than that, they are unoccupied 24 hours a day and 7 days a week.
3. You can earn money out of this company by owning stocks, but no one employs you to do so.
4. How do you not put effort into managing the company while doing something that is meaningful and on-topic? If you are talking about directly, then you win, but whatever you do will directly or indirectly contribute to managing the company.
Round 3
1. I already agreed with your statement "no company should hire someone to do nothing". I do not see the relevance of this statement to the resolution though. I have never advocated for a company to do that.

2. See above.

3. As I said before worker-owned companies are just one example of non-managing-owners. Most shareholders are indeed another example. This is another negation of the resolution. Thanks for agreeing.

4. The resolution is worded as "put effort into managing a company". The reason for this is that this debate is a direct response to your post here:

In this post you claim that a person employed by a company as (in your example) a paper-packer can't be a partial owner of a company because they would be too busy doing their packing job to do any managing. I am pointing out that they would not have to do any managing. They can just do packing and still be a partial owner.

I'll use last round for closing statements.
My closing points:
1. No matter how, as long as you are working, you are directly, and/or indirectly helping to manage the company. Say a paper packer was too busy operating in the Dunder Mifflin warehouse and thus cannot DIRECTLY manage the company, he still makes money and makes the company money, and the two still contributes to the management financially and INDIRECTLY. Doing anything on-task, directly and indirectly, contributes to management. Even if you are sweeping the floor, you are still helping to manage the physical skeleton of the company building. Even if you are packing paper and just packing paper, you are still managing the paper in the company. Managing the papers and the floor are still managing parts of the company, which it goes without saying, belongs to the company. Volkswagen is the boss and Lamborghini is owned by Volkswagen. Regardless, When Lamborghini earns money and sells cars, they are still managing Volkswagen, of course, just indirectly.

I am out of words.