Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ironmagma 1071 days ago
> if the bar loses money each month you're still owed a paycheck

Only until the bar stops existing. You're on the hook for business continuity whether you're the employer or the employee. Lex Fridman and Richard Wolff discussed this: https://youtu.be/o0Bi-q89j5Y?t=2984

Co-ops are indeed the closest thing we have to escaping capitalism in America. However they don't grow very quickly if at all, for the very reason that they aren't efficient at extracting value to fuel growth.
1 comments
JustBreath 1071 days ago
> Only until the bar stops existing.

At which point you are STILL not responsible for any liability. For example if the bar gets sued, you don't lose your home, car, etc...

And in most countries, would receive unemployment that was at least partially paid for by the business in advance.

Notice again though - just like the gold mine - without the infrastructure you can't extract any value at all from your ability to pour drinks.

Wolff is about as bad faith as actors get.

link
ironmagma 1071 days ago
> you are STILL not responsible for any liability [...] you don't lose your home, car, etc

Uh, you lose your car and home when you can't pay for it due to the bar stopping existing. So you are liable in the sense that your entire income disappears due to this event. It takes a certain kind of boneheadedness to not see this.

> without the infrastructure you can't extract any value at all

I'm not sure what your point here is, all you've done is point out the obvious reason this system can even exist in the first place. Congratulations? If it weren't the case, people would just work and get the money directly and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I'll just ignore your baseless/citationless assertion at the end there.

link
JustBreath 1068 days ago
You may be unable to pay bills - except as I mentioned, you'll have unemployment - but that's not NEARLY the same thing as being sued and having to sell your home because your business failed on top of not having any income.

It's always painfully obvious when someone has never had to run even the microist of businesses.

They literally can't perceive the idea that most business owners are taking a huge risk and putting in far more hours and effort than their employees who are free to just walk away any time a better offer comes along.

link
ironmagma 1068 days ago
> It's always kinda obvious who has and hasn't actually had to put personal risk in a business

If you're doing it right, you don't do that. That's why corporations exist, to separate personal and business assets. If your corporate veil gets pierced, that's because you don't know what you're doing.

> far more hours

I mean, if you've ever been at a startup it should be patently obvious that the owners (the board) are not working anywhere nearly as much as people in the office who stay late and many times sleep there.

> free to just walk away any time a better offer comes along

You're absolutely able to do this as a business owner. Businesses get sold and liquidated all the time.

link