[SaintGhurka]

Serious question - If all the profits go to the workers' salaries and nothing is left to pass through to the owner, who would have an incentive to guarantee the workers' salaries if revenue falls short? Who would be willing to risk capital to get the company through unexpected hard times? Should the workers chip in to keep it going?

[Humboldtsnee]

I mean, the owner is a worker. These are not mutually exclusive roles.

If times are tough, then the owners probably take a smaller salary for their labor, or the workers can decide how to cut costs together through salaries, benefits, reducing costs of manufacturing, or whatever.

[idopmstuff]

The owner is a worker AND an investor. If they're actively working in the business, they deserve to be paid for that labor. Regardless of whether they're actively working in the business, they deserve to be rewarded for taking the extremely risky step of creating a small business, which in turn created all the jobs for those workers.

[Guvante]

You imply a hypothetical investor would do that.

Typically they are only interested in injecting money for growth.

If there is insufficient profit to satisfy their cost of capital expectations they sell off or fire until it does.

Our growth model doesn't support resilient businesses only gambling at phenomenal amounts.