• spongebue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days 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.