3 ms·
> To just assigning it to "spite" is narrative bias, in my opinion. If a capitalist no longer wants to have anything to do with something he built, the logical
by markdown 9y ago
> To just assigning it to "spite" is narrative bias, in my opinion.
If a capitalist no longer wants to have anything to do with something he built, the logical thing to do would be to sell it and get some of his $ back. This would also keep the people who helped him build his vanity project employed.
I can't think of a reason to shut it down other than to hurt people.
- Digory 9y agoGiven the NLRB issue, I suspect this was already heavily lawyered and gamed out. Not that he's not angry, but he'd already decided the vote would make it a total loss or close enough. The change in union status may have made it difficult to sell anything ongoing. The biggest asset would be Gothamist's domain name and anyone with that domain was going to have to wade into the labor mess. "Here's an organization running in the red, obligated to negotiate an uncertain new contract with all its employees under NLRB rules! What are my bids?" Might as well save the auction and lawyer fees and take the loss in 2017.