driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
on 16 Jun 15:20
nextcollapse
In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because theyāre the ones risking everything, or something like this, Iām not an economists.
I get the sentiment and Iām 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?
pebbles@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jun 18:36
nextcollapse
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 arenāt like my friends parents little Chinese restraunt.
To me using the, āthink of the shareholdersā 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.
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.
For most shareholders in most businesses, the risk is that you are no longer as rich as your peers.
Most US households canāt 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 canāt 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 donāt 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.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
on 16 Jun 18:51
nextcollapse
Remind me, who is it that gets laid off first when the line starts going downā¦
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
on 17 Jun 01:47
nextcollapse
They donāt lose their life if a company goes under though? I donāt 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.
theneverfox@pawb.social
on 17 Jun 16:38
nextcollapse
No, they do. They donāt die, but they lose their current life
What does, āI betā¦ā mean to you? Youāre welcome to find some numbers if you know how to evaluate P values, it was an expression but hell, name the price of the bet. Lol
dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
on 17 Jun 17:37
collapse
Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:
Health
Time
Opportunity (could be working someplace else thatās better)
These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what āpayā 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 wonāt 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. Itās a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up āstuckā in a bad position, but canāt know until after you start.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 17 Jun 17:50
collapse
Bondholders are having a haircut.
CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de
on 16 Jun 15:25
nextcollapse
You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company
Iām not sure what he she actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasnāt the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.
Everything after the # character in the URL is called an anchor and itās not actually being sent to the website server so itās meant for your browser (though the server can see it using javascript). The anchor can point to any ID in the HTML of the web page and browser will scroll it into view on page load. You can find the ID of any element using right click -> inspect though not all elements have explicit ids.
Thatās exactly where all the value is. Selling peopleās fucking genetic information. What makes it even more valuable is that it can be used against all subsequent descendants of the person that willingly gave it up. Do a DNA test like this and youāre selling out your entire family.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
on 17 Jun 17:53
nextcollapse
TTAM later said it had obtained backing from a āFortune 500 company with a current market capitalization of more than $400 billion and $17 billion of cash on hand.ā
A little searching finds only one company that really fits the bill. Costco has a market cap of $433B and had a reported $14.8B cash on hand as of May 11. Thatās an interesting possibility that I wouldnāt have guessed. Costco is less evil than most big corporations, so thatās a little hopeful if I got it right.
Oracle comes close with a market cap of $583B. Thatās indeed over $400B, but that would make the description a bit weird. In any case, Oracle makes more sense from a business angle. Unfortunately, they are near the top of the evil scale.
Tinidril@midwest.social
on 17 Jun 18:44
nextcollapse
Shit, Oracle was down in the low $400B range in May. Apparently being evil pays well in the current administration.
Itās not a great business model if you think about it. Customers pay a small fee once then never again.
solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 18 Jun 01:28
nextcollapse
When did selling a product instead of a subscription become a bad business model?
Edit: I have a lot of trouble believing that a product that could theoretically have value to every person on the planet for current and every future generations, that canāt be passed along used or resold, couldnāt develop a successful sustainable business model.
Selling a product is a good business model if the product has a shelf life or naturally degrades over time, but served you so well that youāll replace it in kind or with an upgrade.
A product that does something exactly once and done doesnāt scale long term, so once the hype was over, that was that.
When itās an inexpensive product that nobody ever has a reason to buy twice yet remains an ongoing cost for the company? (They keep the data available for review and continue to update it with useful information as knowledge of genetic traits and lineages grows). Thatās not a way to build an ongoing cash flow to cover expenses. Especially when all the people inclined to be interested have already purchased.
Not really. They used to have pretty good privacy agreements. I donāt know about now. They do supply agrigate information to pharmaceutical companies, but that has become a pretty fungible resource. The only big consumer of individual DNA information is law enforcement, and thatās more of an expense than an income flow, since reviewing warrants and providing responses costs money.
An important lesson in infosec is that the best way to reduce the cost of discovery and warrant compliance is to regularly delete any data you donāt need or arenāt legally required to retain. Companies like this donāt have that option. Data is both an asset and a liability.
Bought back by the one person who already had prior access, and bought by her own research non-profit. As far as privacy concerns go, thatās the best case scenario.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
on 18 Jun 00:22
collapse
threaded - newest
š
Debts are gone might as well
In the capitalist system, the investors deserve all the profits because theyāre the ones risking everything, or something like this, Iām not an economists.
Yes, and the workers risk nothing, or something like that, Iām told. š
Iām pretty sure the users risked a lot too for this one
I get the sentiment and Iām 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?
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 arenāt like my friends parents little Chinese restraunt.
To me using the, āthink of the shareholdersā 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
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.
For most shareholders in most businesses, the risk is that you are no longer as rich as your peers.
Most US households canāt 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 canāt 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 donāt 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.
Remind me, who is it that gets laid off first when the line starts going downā¦
Workers give their entire lives.
They donāt lose their life if a company goes under though? I donāt 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.
No, they do. They donāt die, but they lose their current life
I bet thereās far more cases of homeless and suicide due to a lost job than due to a shareholder losing value in one companyās stock.
put it into actual numbers, not just playing on emotions
What does, āI betā¦ā mean to you? Youāre welcome to find some numbers if you know how to evaluate P values, it was an expression but hell, name the price of the bet. Lol
Workers risk a few things, depending on the job:
These have a lot of dimension to them, including how one quantifies what āpayā 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 wonāt 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. Itās a risk since there are substantial barriers to changing to a new job, so you can wind up āstuckā in a bad position, but canāt know until after you start.
Bondholders are having a haircut.
You missed 2. Sell (IPO)company
Iām not sure what
heshe actually did as far as divestiture, but evidently he wasnāt the current owner. I wonder to what degree unreasonable growth expectations flushed the company.She
So fraud? They defrauded the investors by destroying it. I bet she sold before the news the company is going under.
OP, you linked to the comments instead of the top of the article. š
Ah dang you did point it out. They even just copied the top comment there, unless they are ColdWetDog.
At least they quoted it.
Actually an interesting turn of events. Sounds like sheād been fighting hard to get it back, but theyād been fighting her on it.
Not sure what it all means, but thereās something going on there. Itās all very unusual.
Selling off user data but has an excuse to āwasnāt meā the whole situation
Thereās still some gift left to squeeze out. Sheās not giving up on a good bad thing.
I thought they had already agreed the sale of the genetic data to another company?
There's an article in the link.
Debts are gone AND now he can sell the user data with impunity! No NO, that was that OTHER GUY
She*
heh fair, gender bias for me.
Hey, donāt talk about Guy Incognito like that
This roller coaster keeps on rollering
Ok so I think Iām the first person in the comments to actually click to read the article, cause Iām gonna say something Iām not seeing.
How did you get it to auto snap to the article comment section?
Didnt realize you could share that and it wouldnāt default to the article.
The ā#commentā at the end of the URL. Itās a title/heading/fragment in HTML that hints to your browser to go there directly.
Like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URL#fragment
Oh. Neat.
Thanks for the Wikipedia link
Iāve no idea to be honest.
Everything after the # character in the URL is called an anchor and itās not actually being sent to the website server so itās meant for your browser (though the server can see it using javascript). The anchor can point to any ID in the HTML of the web page and browser will scroll it into view on page load. You can find the ID of any element using right click -> inspect though not all elements have explicit ids.
Some webpages have a bad habit of automatically appending tags to the URL, or outright changing it, as you scroll down.
How about the data they sold
Thatās exactly where all the value is. Selling peopleās fucking genetic information. What makes it even more valuable is that it can be used against all subsequent descendants of the person that willingly gave it up. Do a DNA test like this and youāre selling out your entire family.
Thatās not at all concerning.
A little searching finds only one company that really fits the bill. Costco has a market cap of $433B and had a reported $14.8B cash on hand as of May 11. Thatās an interesting possibility that I wouldnāt have guessed. Costco is less evil than most big corporations, so thatās a little hopeful if I got it right.
Oracle comes close with a market cap of $583B. Thatās indeed over $400B, but that would make the description a bit weird. In any case, Oracle makes more sense from a business angle. Unfortunately, they are near the top of the evil scale.
Shit, Oracle was down in the low $400B range in May. Apparently being evil pays well in the current administration.
Calling it here, Costco is going to use the genetic information to create the perfect hot dog.
Costco already creates the perfect hotdog.
I say they should invest in bringing back the Polish dog. That was fucking delicious.
Soylent dogs
Membership is going to be linked to your DNA, the register will prick your finger to make sure youāre valid.
Itās almost certainly Oracle but thereās a slight possibility this is correct
If it costs $1.51 Iām gonna flip shit.
how the fuck did this company go bankrupt what did i miss
Itās not a great business model if you think about it. Customers pay a small fee once then never again.
When did selling a product instead of a subscription become a bad business model?
Edit: I have a lot of trouble believing that a product that could theoretically have value to every person on the planet for current and every future generations, that canāt be passed along used or resold, couldnāt develop a successful sustainable business model.
When quarterly profits must always be green compared to the previous quarter.
Selling a product is a good business model if the product has a shelf life or naturally degrades over time, but served you so well that youāll replace it in kind or with an upgrade.
A product that does something exactly once and done doesnāt scale long term, so once the hype was over, that was that.
When itās an inexpensive product that nobody ever has a reason to buy twice yet remains an ongoing cost for the company? (They keep the data available for review and continue to update it with useful information as knowledge of genetic traits and lineages grows). Thatās not a way to build an ongoing cash flow to cover expenses. Especially when all the people inclined to be interested have already purchased.
I assumed they were making absolute bank by selling the data
Not really. They used to have pretty good privacy agreements. I donāt know about now. They do supply agrigate information to pharmaceutical companies, but that has become a pretty fungible resource. The only big consumer of individual DNA information is law enforcement, and thatās more of an expense than an income flow, since reviewing warrants and providing responses costs money.
An important lesson in infosec is that the best way to reduce the cost of discovery and warrant compliance is to regularly delete any data you donāt need or arenāt legally required to retain. Companies like this donāt have that option. Data is both an asset and a liability.
All your DNA just got bought.
Bought back by the one person who already had prior access, and bought by her own research non-profit. As far as privacy concerns go, thatās the best case scenario.
So glad I never did this one.