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.
I know exactly what you’re saying. You’re using the same “fairness” arguments that people like Jeff Bezos use to keep you from focusing on his literal mountain of wealth. As if the only fair solution is to let them hoard money while people starve to death. To that I say again, slurp slurp.
It’s not a “fairness argument”. I’m not arguing some subjective value judgment of mine, to be debated.
If you expect your roulette bet to pay out when you win, you’d better believe it’s part of the arrangement that the casino is not going to give your bet back when you lose. You can’t get the payout without the risk of loss; similarly, that’s how owning stock works.
So if you as a worker want the benefit that comes with your employer’s company’s net worth going up (which many workers do in fact get, it’s not that rare for stock to be part of a compensation package), it is only fair that you also accept the possibility of being on the hook if it goes down (which is what happens if you’re paid in stock whose price goes down after you receive it).
Correcting a false statement isn’t bootlicking. Use your brain.
That wasn’t a bootlicking sound. That was you sucking rich people off.
My point still stands in its entirety. Consider actually thinking about it instead of imagining me fellating people.
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.
I know exactly what you’re saying. You’re using the same “fairness” arguments that people like Jeff Bezos use to keep you from focusing on his literal mountain of wealth. As if the only fair solution is to let them hoard money while people starve to death. To that I say again, slurp slurp.
It’s not a “fairness argument”. I’m not arguing some subjective value judgment of mine, to be debated.
If you expect your roulette bet to pay out when you win, you’d better believe it’s part of the arrangement that the casino is not going to give your bet back when you lose. You can’t get the payout without the risk of loss; similarly, that’s how owning stock works.
So if you as a worker want the benefit that comes with your employer’s company’s net worth going up (which many workers do in fact get, it’s not that rare for stock to be part of a compensation package), it is only fair that you also accept the possibility of being on the hook if it goes down (which is what happens if you’re paid in stock whose price goes down after you receive it).
You can’t have it both ways.