384
Founder of 23andMe buys back company out of bankruptcy auction (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 70 points 1 year ago (15 children)

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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 41 points 1 year ago* (13 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Workers give their entire lives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent