They contributed investment capital to the company.
robinhood.com says you're incorrect.
No risk => no gains
Of course, many lost money, too. No risk => no gain
The point is, they could invest in the markets, despite being poor.
Humans are Feudal creatures by instict - thats why feudalism lasted thousands of yeats.
Democracy and freedom are fragile and unnatural, they must be cherished.
> There is a dangerous path in this rationalization that will lead you to Marxism.
This is the brain disease of American politics, anyone pointing out injustice of any kind is accused of Marxism.
The only acceptable way for society to evolve is ever-increasing privilidges for the wealthy untill average man can never hope to afford real estate and can't afford a layer.
Then we will arrive at feudalism.
Feudalism failed when capitalism competed with it.
Too late, I'm already a communist. A very capitalistically successful one, mind you.
Further along this thread is way off topic, I don't want to kick off a flame war of communism vs capitalism, I wanted to see what people have in mind about how companies like Google, that exist in a capitalist system, can be forced to care for the needs of their employees over the needs of their shareholders. Whether or not the system should / can be changed is, well, another thread or something lol, not for here.
That said your comment has some interesting ideas that I'm seeing as misconceptions ("some people in Europe that thought it would work" are arguably some of the most important philosophers in the western tradition) but maybe you're thinking along some lines I'm not aware of, so if you want to chat about this I'd love to do so in email, my address is on my profile page here.
I.e. you're positing the "Labor Theory of Value", which is the basis of Marxism.
The LToV errs in assigning zero value to risk-taking and the fact that some people are far more productive than others.
Supply + Demand determine the value.
"Supply + demand" seems an oversimplification of a huge chain of irrational human links.
What actual risk does an investor take? Loss of capital? Compared to an employee who, in the situation where capital is lost, loses the means by which they feed and house themselves, and in the USA, provide healthcare for themselves?
On top of which, right now, investors aren't really taking much loss. This action by Google is done for shareholder value. So not only is the loss for an employee higher in a situation that "harms" a shareholder, it's also more pervasive: the employee might get fired anyway through no fault of their own, even if it's not because the company is going bankrupt and everyone's losing their money.
And while all this is happening the investor has invested in other ventures, potentially even competitors. If google goes bankrupt they lose their initial investment, which by most financial advisories I see should not account for a significant portion of their investment, retirement, or even just savings, so by material measures, they'll be fine.
Meanwhile the employee has put in their time, energy effort. They haven't been able to explore other means of making money, do research into potential investments for themselves. They've been building social capital, specific domain knowledge, client relationships, things that hold some value after a Google collapse, but not all.
At the end of the day I just don't see why what an investor does has any value at all compared to an employee. Can you help me understand better what you mean?
Without investors, the employee does not get paid, as there is no money to pay him.
These investors aren’t contributing capital to the company—they are betting on one square on a roulette wheel.
They are whining because they know they were being over compensated at Google and that they are unlikely to be able to find another job that pays so much money with so little effort.
They're not my enemies but they're not my friends. I don't feel sympathy for them. If anything, they should feel sympathy for me and give me some of that extra cash they've been getting. Why do they deserve it more than I do? I can do "nothing at all" just as well as they did.
Why not?
> If anything, they should feel sympathy for me
Maybe they do, have you talked to some? Also, why should they feel sympathy for you, if you're not interested in feeling sympathy for others?
> give me some of that extra cash they've been getting. Why do they deserve it more than I do?
They don't. Is it their fault that they get paid more and you get paid less for the same or different jobs? Are you pointing your finger at the right people, here?
> I can do "nothing at all" just as well as they did.
You seem to not like when people aren't paid per their labor output. You and I are probably quite aligned in our values, if that's the case. You and I both, for example, surely both find it insane that there are people, hardworking or otherwise, who now command orders of magnitude more capital than anyone on earth, or even in history.
Compared to a billionaire, you at whatever you make, let's say 50k, working harder than a googler making 200k for the same or easier job, are basically siblings in capital. I'd even go so far as to call you class allies.
Perhaps the direction of your anger being pointed distinctly away from the people who are actually causing this injustice is helping same? So why are you mad at random people who make a little bit more than you, rather than at someone that makes several tens of millions a year by simply existing?
My values and your are not aligned at all.
Understand: I don't want sympathy from anyone. I don't think I deserve sympathy, nor do I need it.
Do I need to explain sarcasm to you?
I don't know why people are buying into cult of Google either, I think that's silly, what matters here isn't just that a bunch of people got laid off, but also that now all their former co-workers still at Google have to pick up all their jobs without any more compensation for it. All the saves money from reduction of cost is going to nobody but shareholders - which employees might be a little bit if they're vested, but not to the degree of larger shareholders who contribute nothing.