3 ms·

I work at a PE firm. There are multiple strategies employed, but the name of the game is not to lose money. Disagree with the term "value creation" - fine - but

I work at a PE firm. There are multiple strategies employed, but the name of the game is not to lose money. Disagree with the term "value creation" - fine - but my point is there is zero incentive to lose money. Otherwise, they would be out of business in the long term. I am arguing for worker protection. Not protection of equity value. You inherently take on risk by deploying it, and should accept the realities of that risk.

downrightmike 7y ago
But the core activity is still harm employees at all times. and cut to the bone at every chance to the detriment of employees, that had the original company not sold out, would have had to take better care of their employees and also require more employees as there wouldn't be redundancy between the parent and subsidiary. And all around increases the value to the workers and community. PE over leverage so they have to detriment the employees by default.
majormajor 7y ago
> Otherwise, they would be out of business in the long term. ... that would be a fine incentive if we don't bail them out. Otherwise...
- leveredequity 7y ago
  Totally agree, I thought we were arguing to bail out employees here. That's what I'm aware of based on what I've seen going on in the industry
TuringNYC 7y ago
>> I am arguing for worker protection. Why not simply fund unemployment checks, direct cash, food stamps, student loan deferrals, or more direct means of worker protection than handing the money to PE Firms (which by the way operate by design to squeeze workers) and hoping they protect workers? We've seen this in 2009-2010 -- giving the money to banks doesn't magically make the money trickle down to workers. Perhaps some of it does, but why not make all of it trickle down by skipping the middlemen? What are the odds the middlemen will conveniently issue a giant dividend to themselves or do a stock buy-back or any other number of tricks that will achieve nothing for the workers.

downrightmike 7y ago

But the core activity is still harm employees at all times. and cut to the bone at every chance to the detriment of employees, that had the original company not sold out, would have had to take better care of their employees and also require more employees as there wouldn't be redundancy between the parent and subsidiary. And all around increases the value to the workers and community. PE over leverage so they have to detriment the employees by default.

majormajor 7y ago

> Otherwise, they would be out of business in the long term. ... that would be a fine incentive if we don't bail them out. Otherwise...

leveredequity 7y ago
Totally agree, I thought we were arguing to bail out employees here. That's what I'm aware of based on what I've seen going on in the industry

TuringNYC 7y ago

>> I am arguing for worker protection. Why not simply fund unemployment checks, direct cash, food stamps, student loan deferrals, or more direct means of worker protection than handing the money to PE Firms (which by the way operate by design to squeeze workers) and hoping they protect workers? We've seen this in 2009-2010 -- giving the money to banks doesn't magically make the money trickle down to workers. Perhaps some of it does, but why not make all of it trickle down by skipping the middlemen? What are the odds the middlemen will conveniently issue a giant dividend to themselves or do a stock buy-back or any other number of tricks that will achieve nothing for the workers.