[smsm42]

Yes, it is OK to "exploit" the fact that somebody wants to sell something cheap, but it's not OK to take it by force. If you think it is hypocritical, next time you buy something at a discounted sale instead of stealing it you're a hypocrite.

>>> The penalty for employers (losing some profit if all workers quit or get fired) is virtually nonexistent:

Because in your world running a business carries no risk as businesses never go bust. I see. Must be nice.

>>> limited-liability companies are set up with the explicit aim of exonerating capital owners from responsibility beyond the invested capital.

And losing invested capital (for small business/startup - likely all one has and also a lot of borrowed money) is nothing. Again, must be nice to be a man for whom losing all investment is nothing.

>>> The penalty for them is much higher

You mean, they have to go to work to another place now? If they possess marketable skills of decent quality, it won't be long before they'd be paid for them. If not, now we know why the business went bust - they shouldn't have hired workers which are incompetent.

>>> Refusing to consider the fundamental imbalance of labor relationships is disingenuous at best.

Here we considered it and found you fundamentally misunderstand both nature of business and nature of employment, suggesting business carries no risk and employment only possible with single employer and if that goes bust the worker can not work anymore. Yes, it does sound a bit sad.

[toyg]

Because in your world running a business carries no risk as businesses never go bust. [...] And losing invested capital (for small business/startup - likely all one has and also a lot of borrowed money) is nothing

We are talking about Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe -- startups? Small businesses? No, market-clearing companies with billions in profit and rich dividends, quarter after quarter.

If they possess marketable skills of decent quality, it won't be long before they'd be paid for them.

As you put it, must be nice to be a man for whom losing a job is nothing. If you are a major investor in Intel or Adobe, chances are you are not going to lose your house over it; things tend to be different for most workers.

I am not saying business never carries risk; what I'm saying is that the type of risk is qualitatively different from the risk of losing a job for an average salaried worker.

[smsm42]

Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe were startups once. They took risks. These risks played out. Hundreds of others took the same risks, and you don't know their names, because their risks didn't. But you can also remember names like Compaq, DEC and Ashton-Tate. They were giants once. They are no more. There's always risk, and Adobe of today may become Ashton-Tate of tomorrow.

>>> must be nice to be a man for whom losing a job is nothing.

I didn't say it's nothing. I said it's not losing your livelihood on permanent basis. If you have marketable skills, you will find another job, and unlike capital, your skills can not be lost. They can become stale and out of date, but there's an easy remedy for that - keep learning and improving - and that needs to happen even if you do have a job.

>>> If you are a major investor in Intel or Adobe, chances are you are not going to lose your house over it;

Unless you deal in trivialities like "if you're a billionaire, then losing a million does not matter", many people lost a lot on dotcom boost, and many lost their house quite literally betting on housing market. Unless you are a politician or friends with one, investment always carries a risk of loss.

>>> I'm saying is that the type of risk is qualitatively different from the risk of losing a job for an average salaried worker.

Yes, it is, investor risk what can be easily and irreversibly lost and can not be protected (I exclude bailout shenanigans of course, this is plain old robbery that our politicians facilitated) and the salaryman risks only a temporary dip in the cash flow in the most cases, and his skills can not be taken away or lost, indeed they are usually improving constantly (15 years of experience is usually better than 5). The nature of risk is substantially different. That's why most people prefer salary.