• Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, I’m told. 😂

    • rigatti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      I get the sentiment and I’m all for workers sharing in profits, but what do they really risk by working at a company? Sure, the company can fail and they might be stuck in a bad situation, but shareholders and owners probably have it worse in that scenario, right?

      • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        44 minutes ago

        Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:

        • Health
        • Time
        • Opportunity (could be working someplace else that’s better)

        These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what “pay” actually is/for, what legal restrictions there are around taking the job (e.g. non-compete, non-arbitration), work/life balance, and so on.

        Risk comes into play where the employee takes a bet that the job won’t destroy their health, work only as much as is absolutely necessary, and have taken a position at the optimal balance of responsibility, personal growth, retirement prospects, and income. It’s a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up “stuck” in a bad position, but can’t know until after you start.

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          16 hours ago

          They don’t lose their life if a company goes under though? I don’t mean to diminish the contribution of workers. I think they need a much higher share of what companies take in, and they need more voices at their companies.

          • Alaik@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 minutes ago

            I bet there’s far more cases of homeless and suicide due to a lost job than due to a shareholder losing value in one company’s stock.

      • pebbles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        Depends, are you considering the fact that 90% of stocks are owned by the top 10% of Americans? Also are you considering that being in the top 10% means you likely have rich friends and family that could bail you out? I think black rock is going to be fine.

        Most businesses aren’t like my friends parents little Chinese restraunt.

        To me using the, “think of the shareholders” line is silly for a reason. The biggest privilege is the privilege to make mistakes without becoming impoverished. Workers have it much harder in that respect.

        Edit: grammer

        • rigatti@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          15 hours ago

          You make a good point that the shareholder/business owner class is more likely to have better safety nets. So from that standpoint, if the absolute value of their loss is greater, it could have a much less significant impact on their lives.

          I think you may be underestimating the amount of small businesses though, at least in the US.