4 ms·

Would you also argue that when companies need additional funding during hard times or to expand, the employees should be forced by law to invest their own money

Would you also argue that when companies need additional funding during hard times or to expand, the employees should be forced by law to invest their own money into the company? With harsh penalties if they refuse? If not, then it seems like someone else is taking all the risk but the employees are reaping all the rewards. It would be great for me personally if my employer was forced to share his profits with me during the good times. But the reality is that during the hard times - when there's a global pandemic for example - he's the one who has to remortgage his house and max out his credit cards to make payroll, whereas I'm just a guy who can walk away with a month's notice.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Right, putting your time into working for a struggling company isn't taking any risk, and the executives deserve further rewards than just their salary.
analognoise 6y ago
Oh boo hoo for the ownership class, somebody might have to sell a yacht to make payroll! They got 40 years of sending labor to developing countries, dismantled our infrastructure to privatize it, ALREADY got a 1.9T tax break (from Trump, even though almost all economists were AGAINST it) now they might have to SCROUNGE DEEP as...as people flock to the information services they largely own? Boo hoo for them! Oh no! They might lose a house, something the millions of people who are going to be evicted as soon as the moratoriums end will also get to experience! They'll be left without their SUMMER home! What a terrible loss! We'd better give them another tax loophole! I know programmers are insulated and have a very warped view of the world, but let's not forget we're (generally) labor, and let's not lick the boot that's on all of labor's collective necks TOO hard, neh?
- sigstoat 6y ago
  > I know programmers are insulated and have a very warped view of the world look in the mirror. most businesses aren't giant megacorps owned by folks with yachts. and, hell, the megacorps? large chunks of them are owned by folks without yachts, too. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL this sort of hyperbolic rage only makes understanding and improving things harder.
  - analognoise 6y ago
    They already got a 1.9T tax cut. It's hard not to have rage when we're collectively getting fucked. I know there are a lot of wantrepeneurs here, but let's not pretend we're all not mostly still...workers.
toyg 6y ago
The reality of LTD companies is precisely that investors don’t have to do that. If the company goes under, well, too bad; they will take some of the fat accumulated in good years, and start again. That’s the whole point of modern capitalism: the capitalist is insulated from the worst outcomes of his enterprise. At the moment, the risk/reward equation is unbalanced. For owners, it goes from outsized risk at startup to outsized reward at success; for employees, it goes from outsized risk at startup to moderate risk at success
- jlawson 6y ago
  Employees do not take the same risk as owners/founders. If a startup fails: Founder loses two years, his life savings, and gets paid nothing. Employee loses two years, keeps his life savings, and gets paid salary for that time. Completely different risk propositions.
  - toyg 6y ago
    Owners can (and do) draw a salary in the same way as employees, and don’t lose any life saving they have not invested, same as employees. If the business die they end up without a source of income, same as employees. If the business succeeds they reap much bigger rewards than employees. I should know, I was one.
hhjinks 6y ago
>Would you also argue that when companies need additional funding during hard times or to expand, the employees should be forced by law to invest their own money into the company What, you mean, like, bailouts? Because we do bailouts. Only difference is that, while the taxpayers pay, they see no return.
- foolinaround 6y ago
  Only those with lobbying clout get bailouts. See the situation of the small businesses now...
- Chris2048 6y ago
  When did the VG industry get a bailout?
AngryData 6y ago
No, because that was their risk to take in starting a business and if it fails the worst position they are in is the exact position their employees were always in. Businesses should have no guarantees, individual people on the other hand probably should, if not for moral or ethical reasons, just for the fact that it improves our economy, our culture, and out entire society. Artificially supporting failing businesses has negative consequences upon society, supporting a struggling individual has positive benefits to society.
- IQunder130 6y ago
  So you agree that business takes on the risk, but then go around to say profits should then be redistributed by law? Where is the incentive to do business then? Why is artificially supporting failing businesses bad, yet artificially punishing successful ones not?

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Right, putting your time into working for a struggling company isn't taking any risk, and the executives deserve further rewards than just their salary.

analognoise 6y ago

Oh boo hoo for the ownership class, somebody might have to sell a yacht to make payroll! They got 40 years of sending labor to developing countries, dismantled our infrastructure to privatize it, ALREADY got a 1.9T tax break (from Trump, even though almost all economists were AGAINST it) now they might have to SCROUNGE DEEP as...as people flock to the information services they largely own? Boo hoo for them! Oh no! They might lose a house, something the millions of people who are going to be evicted as soon as the moratoriums end will also get to experience! They'll be left without their SUMMER home! What a terrible loss! We'd better give them another tax loophole! I know programmers are insulated and have a very warped view of the world, but let's not forget we're (generally) labor, and let's not lick the boot that's on all of labor's collective necks TOO hard, neh?

sigstoat 6y ago
> I know programmers are insulated and have a very warped view of the world look in the mirror. most businesses aren't giant megacorps owned by folks with yachts. and, hell, the megacorps? large chunks of them are owned by folks without yachts, too. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL this sort of hyperbolic rage only makes understanding and improving things harder.
- analognoise 6y ago
  They already got a 1.9T tax cut. It's hard not to have rage when we're collectively getting fucked. I know there are a lot of wantrepeneurs here, but let's not pretend we're all not mostly still...workers.

toyg 6y ago

The reality of LTD companies is precisely that investors don’t have to do that. If the company goes under, well, too bad; they will take some of the fat accumulated in good years, and start again. That’s the whole point of modern capitalism: the capitalist is insulated from the worst outcomes of his enterprise. At the moment, the risk/reward equation is unbalanced. For owners, it goes from outsized risk at startup to outsized reward at success; for employees, it goes from outsized risk at startup to moderate risk at success

jlawson 6y ago
Employees do not take the same risk as owners/founders. If a startup fails: Founder loses two years, his life savings, and gets paid nothing. Employee loses two years, keeps his life savings, and gets paid salary for that time. Completely different risk propositions.
- toyg 6y ago
  Owners can (and do) draw a salary in the same way as employees, and don’t lose any life saving they have not invested, same as employees. If the business die they end up without a source of income, same as employees. If the business succeeds they reap much bigger rewards than employees. I should know, I was one.

hhjinks 6y ago

>Would you also argue that when companies need additional funding during hard times or to expand, the employees should be forced by law to invest their own money into the company What, you mean, like, bailouts? Because we do bailouts. Only difference is that, while the taxpayers pay, they see no return.

foolinaround 6y ago
Only those with lobbying clout get bailouts. See the situation of the small businesses now...
Chris2048 6y ago
When did the VG industry get a bailout?

AngryData 6y ago

No, because that was their risk to take in starting a business and if it fails the worst position they are in is the exact position their employees were always in. Businesses should have no guarantees, individual people on the other hand probably should, if not for moral or ethical reasons, just for the fact that it improves our economy, our culture, and out entire society. Artificially supporting failing businesses has negative consequences upon society, supporting a struggling individual has positive benefits to society.

IQunder130 6y ago
So you agree that business takes on the risk, but then go around to say profits should then be redistributed by law? Where is the incentive to do business then? Why is artificially supporting failing businesses bad, yet artificially punishing successful ones not?