• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      1 day ago

      In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because they’re the ones risking everything, or something like this, I’m not an economists.

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          1 day ago

          I get the sentiment and I’m all for workers sharing in profits, but what do they really risk by working at a company? Sure, the company can fail and they might be stuck in a bad situation, but shareholders and owners probably have it worse in that scenario, right?

          • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:

            • Health
            • Time
            • Opportunity (could be working someplace else that’s better)

            These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what “pay” actually is/for, what legal restrictions there are around taking the job (e.g. non-compete, non-arbitration), work/life balance, and so on.

            Risk comes into play where the employee takes a bet that the job won’t destroy their health, work only as much as is absolutely necessary, and have taken a position at the optimal balance of responsibility, personal growth, retirement prospects, and income. It’s a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up “stuck” in a bad position, but can’t know until after you start.

            • rigatti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              16 hours ago

              They don’t lose their life if a company goes under though? I don’t mean to diminish the contribution of workers. I think they need a much higher share of what companies take in, and they need more voices at their companies.

              • Alaik@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                42 minutes ago

                I bet there’s far more cases of homeless and suicide due to a lost job than due to a shareholder losing value in one company’s stock.

          • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            24 hours ago

            Depends, are you considering the fact that 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans? Also are you considering that being in the top 10% means you likely have rich friends and family that could bail you out? I think black rock is going to be fine.

            Most businesses aren’t like my friends parents little Chinese restraunt.

            To me using the, “think of the shareholders” line is silly for a reason. The biggest privilege is the privilege to make mistakes without becoming impoverished. Workers have it much harder in that respect.

            Edit: grammer

            • rigatti@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              16 hours ago

              You make a good point that the shareholder/business owner class is more likely to have better safety nets. So from that standpoint, if the absolute value of their loss is greater, it could have a much less significant impact on their lives.

              I think you may be underestimating the amount of small businesses though, at least in the US.

    • CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company

      I’m not sure what he she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasn’t the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.

      • Krauerking@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.

    • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      So fraud? They defrauded the investors by destroying it. I bet she sold before the news the company is going under.