452
where did it go? (quokk.au)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/mop
42 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 8 months ago (11 children)

a bunch goes to owners who fronted the startup costs and are on the hook if things go sideways

Workers take a risk too when they work for a small company, and are often worse off than the owner when the business fails.

why doesn't this guy and his coworkers just do it on their own and pocket all that extra money?

The question that should be asked is, why doesn't the owner transform the business into a worker cooperative?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The question that should be asked is, why doesn't the owner transform the business into a worker cooperative?

    Easy! Because then the owner would have less money 😃

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Sadly, this whole conversation has been derailed by the deflection of the focus to small businesses probably with <10 people. Lots of these arguments made by the person you responded to become more and more threadbare as a company grows.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    That’s not derailed, if realized employee compensation is only 500k then it’s a small company exactly like the ones being used as an example. You can take a good chunk of that 1.2M he references away in associated companies payroll taxes and benefits that deep brain in the meme doesn’t include in his breakdown. A company paying out $500k in payroll is a small business.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Workers take a risk too when they work for a small company, and are often worse off than the owner when the business fails.

    How do you figure? Starting a business (generally) requires a lot of money to lease space, make it usable for your needs, and all those employees you're paying. Some of that can be liquidated (often at a lower amount than you got it for) other expenses you're on the hook for. That can add up to be a lot.

    Employees can be out pay, and while there's no doubt that totally sucks, the potential losses are basically limited to how long you kept showing up to work despite no paycheck.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    "Risk" in this context too often refers to the risk of a number in a portfolio going down, not somebody's actual personal life getting messed up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    Depends on the business. I get the "line must go up" mentality in corporate environments, but I'm thinking of simple manufacturing or retail businesses where it could be as simple as "we need to sell enough coffee to pay for the tables, chairs, flooring, machines to make the coffee, etc etc etc"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Think about your job. It's your livelihood, it (hopefully) covers all your expenses within the month, right? You're therefore dependent on the stability of the company. A small company is not stable, meaning that workers are placed in a precarious position because their livelihood would disappear with the failure of that business. This is the math:

    • No paycheck=no rent money, no food money, no bill money.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    It's not lost on me. But don't forget that there's a similar risk of negative money for the owner, and it's not like large companies aren't subject to layoffs with the same potential loss of paychecks.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    it's not like large companies aren't subject to layoffs

    Precarity is a defining feature of the worker's condition under capitalism, yes. That doesn't mean that there isn't stratification on how precarious the situation is for individual workers. It goes homeless < gig work < temp work < small company < big company

    don't forget that there's a similar risk of negative money for the owner

    I'm not discounting the risks taken by small business owners. However the risks to them is a damaged investment portfolio. The risk to workers is a loss of livelihood.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Many small companies are run by the owners directly. It is not just an investment. They might put their life savings into it, and work countless unpaid stressful hours. As owners there is a chance that all this effort will pay off and they'll make good money; but there is also a good chance to lose everything, and then not have a job also. The 9-5 worker maybe loses 2-weeks salary if the bank foreclosed on the operation. The owner loses all the extra time and financial investment. They lose more if they used personal property as collateral (very common). Even after the company stops operation, the owners, as directors have to still run the financial and legal aspects for a long time, often dealing with law suits, tax issues, etc. The point is that the 9-5 worker can easily walk away and get another job. The owner often loses a lot more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent