this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
389 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
73139 readers
3535 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
๐
Debts are gone might as well
In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because they're the ones risking everything, or something like this, I'm not an economists.
Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, I'm told. ๐
Iโm pretty sure the users risked a lot too for this one
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?
Remind me, who is it that gets laid off first when the line starts going downโฆ
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
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.
For most shareholders in most businesses, the risk is that you are no longer as rich as your peers.
Most US households can't weather a $1000 unexpected expense without going into debt.
To be real, capital gains are the definition of inequality. It is making money by having enough money to own something. There is no other economic force that drives inequality more.
Small business is a decent minority of US employers. It can't be ignored, but it is the unlikely case when sampling by employee or just by random citizen.
At most an owner can be reimbursed for their costs of starting the business. Past that I don't see any reason to give them a special share of the profits. Even that feels generous given how unequal we are, and that fact that having the money to start a business means you are likely more privileged than your employees.
Workers give their entire lives.
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.
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.
put it into actual numbers, not just playing on emotions
What does, "I bet..." mean to you? You're welcome to find some numbers if you know how to evaluate P values, it was an expression but hell, name the price of the bet. Lol
No, they do. They don't die, but they lose their current life
Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:
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.
Bondholders are having a haircut.
You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company
Iโm not sure what ~~he~~ she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasnโt the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.
She
OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. ๐
Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.
At least they quoted it.
So fraud? They defrauded the investors by destroying it. I bet she sold before the news the company is going under.