Explain how your “point” makes any sense or stands at all, outside of a 5 year old’s version of fairness?
How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company? One that doesn’t even pay its fair share in taxes. Is it ‘fair’ that the people making the fuckup keep their employees at starvation levels while they buy jewelry worth more than they’ll see in decades?
No? Then your point is meaningless when the fairness doesn’t go both ways. You can say your argument stands all day, but its as meaningless as telling me you can jump to the moon.
It is a fact that net worth changes are not an injection of cash money, and it is also a fact that profiting when the net worth of the company you work for goes up, is only a fair arrangement if you also are on the hook when the net worth goes down. To restate the simple analogy:
Wanting only the upside is like demanding that your roulette wheel bet should pay out normally if you win big, but should be refunded when you lose.
These are plain facts. Explain precisely how either of those doesn’t make sense.
How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company?
It’s not, if said people aren’t being paid in company stock. However, if a worker expects to benefit from the net worth going up, they should expect to be on the hook when the net worth goes down, too. You can’t have it both ways; that would be unfair. You want the benefits of being compensated in stock without the risk that owning stock inherently carries, namely the volatility of its value.
Explain how your “point” makes any sense or stands at all, outside of a 5 year old’s version of fairness?
How is it ‘fair’ to make poor people pay to cover up the fuckup of a multi trillion dollar company? One that doesn’t even pay its fair share in taxes. Is it ‘fair’ that the people making the fuckup keep their employees at starvation levels while they buy jewelry worth more than they’ll see in decades?
No? Then your point is meaningless when the fairness doesn’t go both ways. You can say your argument stands all day, but its as meaningless as telling me you can jump to the moon.
It is a fact that net worth changes are not an injection of cash money, and it is also a fact that profiting when the net worth of the company you work for goes up, is only a fair arrangement if you also are on the hook when the net worth goes down. To restate the simple analogy:
Wanting only the upside is like demanding that your roulette wheel bet should pay out normally if you win big, but should be refunded when you lose.
These are plain facts. Explain precisely how either of those doesn’t make sense.
It’s not, if said people aren’t being paid in company stock. However, if a worker expects to benefit from the net worth going up, they should expect to be on the hook when the net worth goes down, too. You can’t have it both ways; that would be unfair. You want the benefits of being compensated in stock without the risk that owning stock inherently carries, namely the volatility of its value.
So the reasonable inference from what you’re saying is there should be worker communal ownership of corporations… agree
It’s not a “should”; any group of people is perfectly free to create a business that’s run that way.
Stealing already-existing ownership because you want the upside without risking the downside isn’t fair, though.
So only those wealthy enough to start a business can have direct control of their working conditions… oppressive ideology