Is there any reason they would get a different amount per share than other shareholders? I'd assume it would only depend on how much stock they have obtained either by purchasing it from the market, using the stock purchase plan (where they can buy it for 85% of market price if they agreed to keep it for 2 years), or the stock-grants that were given to employees.

And the ones who bought stock (including those that did so at the 85% discount) will get the value of their stock. However, shareholders aren't guaranteed any returns. If they bought their stock in 2013 they lost money. Employees who bought stock with the 85% discount won't be quite as bad off as non-employee shareholders.

Imagine suggesting that any employee who was hired when the stock price was higher than the selling price now had to pay money to those who were hired when the stock price was lower. Fortunately, employees are not held liable for the valuation of the company at which they work. If they WANT to participate in that risk and reward they can buy stock--sometimes at a discount like Whole Foods offered.

I reject that notion entirely. The employees are the reason why the store was able to do so well. They should get the bulk of the reward for that.

I flat out reject this idea that people should get the bulk of reward simply for already having money.

You keep referring to the 'moneyed' as an alien entity when in reality it is a lot of index funds, pension funds, 401ks and what not.

Are you saying there should be less/no return for investing your money? If so, how do you suppose we incentivize investments?

The top 5% own >70% of all stock, so no it mostly isn't grandma's 401k or grandpa's pension. Half of all Americans don't own a single share of anything in any form.

You have to admit, whether or not this was ever anyone's intent, from a social control perspective, tying your retirement to the health of the market is a real masterstroke.

I didn't say there should be no return. Suggesting that is quite dishonest on your part.

I merely stated that the bulk of reward should go to those who actually DO something, not those who's only contribution is already having money. Of course they should get a return on that money. It just shouldn't be the bulk of the reward.

Boy aren't you looking to get offended :). I said less OR no return, since it wasn't explicit in your comments. Picking only parts that suit you is ginormously dishonest if my logical OR seems 'quite dishonest' to you :)

But investors are actually doing something as well - they are putting their hard earned money towards a venture. And as it stands today, we have more need for capital than 'actual work'. So it gets rewarded more. In simplistic terms, If you want an investor to put his money into a business you are starting instead of buying up rare resources or hoarding his cash, you give up equity. And hence their reward are relative to the money they put in.

I was just trying to see if you have any alternative plans to encourage such investment. This is back to basics economics as I know, but I don't know much there. Hence my query.

And the shareholders are [usually/pretty much] the entire reason there is a company there for them to work at and potentially hold some shares in. There are two sides to that.

And the employee's get a paycheck in return...

-$1,000's, most likely. Unless they have good contracts (which they probably don't).