What, you mean, like, bailouts? Because we do bailouts. Only difference is that, while the taxpayers pay, they see no return.
Artificially supporting failing businesses has negative consequences upon society, supporting a struggling individual has positive benefits to society.
At the moment, the risk/reward equation is unbalanced. For owners, it goes from outsized risk at startup to outsized reward at success; for employees, it goes from outsized risk at startup to moderate risk at success
If a startup fails:
Founder loses two years, his life savings, and gets paid nothing.
Employee loses two years, keeps his life savings, and gets paid salary for that time.
Completely different risk propositions.
look in the mirror.
most businesses aren't giant megacorps owned by folks with yachts.
and, hell, the megacorps? large chunks of them are owned by folks without yachts, too.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL
this sort of hyperbolic rage only makes understanding and improving things harder.
I know there are a lot of wantrepeneurs here, but let's not pretend we're all not mostly still...workers.
If not, then it seems like someone else is taking all the risk but the employees are reaping all the rewards.
It would be great for me personally if my employer was forced to share his profits with me during the good times. But the reality is that during the hard times - when there's a global pandemic for example - he's the one who has to remortgage his house and max out his credit cards to make payroll, whereas I'm just a guy who can walk away with a month's notice.