A common meme argument in support of capitalism is that the investor, not the worker, takes all of the financial risk. But a typical scenario is that the company loses money, the worker loses his livelihood while the investor just has to forget about buying a boat this year.
-
Show this thread
-
The worker can lose his ability to put food on the table even when the company is profitable, for example when the manager decides to outsource. The investor gets his yacht, but the worker still ends up in a precarious situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Losing your whole income is far more of a financial risk than losing a portion of your investable assets.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @_amalek_
Yeah but the worst case scenario there is the worker simply stops receiving new money from the company. It's *only* a positive sum game for them. The worker doesn't have any principle to lose, and didn't have to wager decades of savings to access the wages of the firm.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AnechoicMedia14
The worst case scenario is that the worker can't put food on his table, pay his medical bills, pay rent, support his family, etc. The investor rarely risks "decades of savings" in reality and even if he did, that's money he could afford to save, i.e. could afford to lose.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
Yeah, of course, because humans are ongoing money pits that need new stuff all the time. But the fact that the experience of being broke sucks says nothing about the risk calculation of the firm itself as a transaction.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.