I didnt mean to imply every business or situation is the same. Businesses are run as differently as there are opinions online, to varying degrees of success. When owners and management share the responsibility of the company with the working class, it can work perfectly fine.
of course. I just guess i don’t agree with your fundamental conceptualization of the original statement fully.
When I say they only bear it financially I mean that literally.
Again, i’m just not sure that this is the case. I could argue that if your house burnt down, that you only lost something of financial value, but a lot of people, you probably included would disagree with me on that. I guess if you’re strictly talking money, you would only be losing something financial in that aspect. But outside of finance there is plenty to lose.
I also don’t really understand the whole “they just have to go get a job thing” couldn’t you say the exact same thing about any working class person? Who is arguably in a better position to just “go get a job?” I might not be fully following the chain of logic here, but it feels like you’re devaluing the company, while also devaluing the worker, you can’t have a valuable company without a valuable worker, so i’m not really sure how your math works out on this one.
If you’re just trying to make the point that they’re “not royalty” i would agree with you but i’m not sure what the point of that argument would be.
There is a difference in how people are treated when they lose their job vs losing their business. Its much harder to argue that losing your job is a good thing but plenty of people accept that business owners will fail before getting it “right”.
it would make sense to me that people are treated differently in those different scenarios, i feel like this is the difference between losing a daily commuter, and losing a personal project car, for instance. You probably don’t care very much about your daily commuter, but if you lost a project car that would hurt a lot more.
Employees that are also working for the company that goes bust are generally going to feel the same way as well as get a similar treatment. It’s really only going to be workers at giga companies like amazon that people don’t really care about because of how many people they move through the ranks.
are you arguing that it’s good to lose a business now? I don’t understand the line of reasoning behind this, i mean sure bad businesses won’t survive but there are many good ones, that are just struggling. On the point about failing before getting it right, you can argue the same thing as a worker as well. The cost and learning curve isn’t as steep though. That’s kind of the entire point of the education system.
as for “losing your job is a good thing” this thread is old, so idk where that came from, but economically, as far as the market does, you need movement through any industry. Infinite growth is unsustainable (obviously) and having a static work force is going to greatly devalue some jobs, while incredibly overvaluing others. This is why some jobs are better than others at different times.
I guess you could argue the same for businesses, but that would apply to both businesses failing to meet market demands, and businesses exceeding market demands as well. So that’s not applied in-equally or anything.
of course. I just guess i don’t agree with your fundamental conceptualization of the original statement fully.
Again, i’m just not sure that this is the case. I could argue that if your house burnt down, that you only lost something of financial value, but a lot of people, you probably included would disagree with me on that. I guess if you’re strictly talking money, you would only be losing something financial in that aspect. But outside of finance there is plenty to lose.
I also don’t really understand the whole “they just have to go get a job thing” couldn’t you say the exact same thing about any working class person? Who is arguably in a better position to just “go get a job?” I might not be fully following the chain of logic here, but it feels like you’re devaluing the company, while also devaluing the worker, you can’t have a valuable company without a valuable worker, so i’m not really sure how your math works out on this one.
If you’re just trying to make the point that they’re “not royalty” i would agree with you but i’m not sure what the point of that argument would be.
it would make sense to me that people are treated differently in those different scenarios, i feel like this is the difference between losing a daily commuter, and losing a personal project car, for instance. You probably don’t care very much about your daily commuter, but if you lost a project car that would hurt a lot more.
Employees that are also working for the company that goes bust are generally going to feel the same way as well as get a similar treatment. It’s really only going to be workers at giga companies like amazon that people don’t really care about because of how many people they move through the ranks.
are you arguing that it’s good to lose a business now? I don’t understand the line of reasoning behind this, i mean sure bad businesses won’t survive but there are many good ones, that are just struggling. On the point about failing before getting it right, you can argue the same thing as a worker as well. The cost and learning curve isn’t as steep though. That’s kind of the entire point of the education system.
as for “losing your job is a good thing” this thread is old, so idk where that came from, but economically, as far as the market does, you need movement through any industry. Infinite growth is unsustainable (obviously) and having a static work force is going to greatly devalue some jobs, while incredibly overvaluing others. This is why some jobs are better than others at different times.
I guess you could argue the same for businesses, but that would apply to both businesses failing to meet market demands, and businesses exceeding market demands as well. So that’s not applied in-equally or anything.