> So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get scr

> So, when the company is doing "fine" according to market (and everyone who did nothing except buying stocks wins money!), how is it that the employees get screwed? You mean that the people who paid for the company to produce widgets profit when the widgets are profitable? Not the people who designed the widgets? Thing is, if the widgets fail and the company goes bust the shareholders lose their investment. If it does well, they'll make money. They aren't "doing nothing except buying stocks" - they're risking their investment. If the company was funded by debt instead of shares, then the debt would be paid down at a fixed rate and then profits would go to the private owner. So even without "the market" the employees don't profit by design unless the company chooses that as an incentive system. If, however, the company was owned by the workers then they would indeed profit from the widgets and suffer from the failure. Such companies do in fact exist. But they will still lay off staff when it's sensible to do so, and that may well increase profits which are distributed amongst those remaining.