5 ms·
I don't see why this would be a meaningful comparison. Employees make wages, not profits. They do not expect to share profit with their employer. If the company
by smegma2 6y ago
I don't see why this would be a meaningful comparison. Employees make wages, not profits. They do not expect to share profit with their employer. If the company made a loss, they would rightfully not share the loss either.
- supertrope 6y agoSharing the loss usually comes in the form of layoffs and reduced hours.
- Anon1096 6y agoThis year Amazon went on a hiring spree to fill the extra demand. Does that count as sharing the profit to you then?
- gbanfalvi 6y agoNo. When they hire employees they (at least expect to) increase their own profit. Losses are shared between a company and the employee losing their job, income is (unevenly) shared between an employer and the employee, profit is exclusively for the employer.
- defertoreptar 6y agoWages and the costs of hiring/employing are a cash outflow. Losses mean that outflow is greater than inflow, so wages can be related to losses, but they are not mutually exclusive. Cuts to jobs and reduced hours can be because of losses, or they could also be due to efficiency gains, in which they could be related to profits instead. Divisions and jobs can be cut because they make neither profit or loss. Employee's don't share in losses or profits unless their compensation is somehow tied to profits.
- aaron-santos 6y agoWhy do you think the authors would want to promote a view where employers are expected to share profit?
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoCome on. This is an unusual circumstance. Employees are taking risks to support the public in a time of need. It would be very reasonable to think, a public-spirited non-selfish board would take more steps to support their employees, up to and including some share of the windfall profits.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]