Workers take a risk too when they work for a small company, and are often worse off than the owner when the business fails.
How do you figure? Starting a business (generally) requires a lot of money to lease space, make it usable for your needs, and all those employees you’re paying. Some of that can be liquidated (often at a lower amount than you got it for) other expenses you’re on the hook for. That can add up to be a lot.
Employees can be out pay, and while there’s no doubt that totally sucks, the potential losses are basically limited to how long you kept showing up to work despite no paycheck.
Depends on the business. I get the “line must go up” mentality in corporate environments, but I’m thinking of simple manufacturing or retail businesses where it could be as simple as “we need to sell enough coffee to pay for the tables, chairs, flooring, machines to make the coffee, etc etc etc”
Think about your job. It’s your livelihood, it (hopefully) covers all your expenses within the month, right? You’re therefore dependent on the stability of the company. A small company is not stable, meaning that workers are placed in a precarious position because their livelihood would disappear with the failure of that business. This is the math:
No paycheck=no rent money, no food money, no bill money.
It’s not lost on me. But don’t forget that there’s a similar risk of negative money for the owner, and it’s not like large companies aren’t subject to layoffs with the same potential loss of paychecks.
it’s not like large companies aren’t subject to layoffs
Precarity is a defining feature of the worker’s condition under capitalism, yes. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t stratification on how precarious the situation is for individual workers. It goes homeless < gig work < temp work < small company < big company
don’t forget that there’s a similar risk of negative money for the owner
I’m not discounting the risks taken by small business owners. However the risks to them is a damaged investment portfolio. The risk to workers is a loss of livelihood.
Many small companies are run by the owners directly. It is not just an investment. They might put their life savings into it, and work countless unpaid stressful hours. As owners there is a chance that all this effort will pay off and they’ll make good money; but there is also a good chance to lose everything, and then not have a job also. The 9-5 worker maybe loses 2-weeks salary if the bank foreclosed on the operation. The owner loses all the extra time and financial investment. They lose more if they used personal property as collateral (very common). Even after the company stops operation, the owners, as directors have to still run the financial and legal aspects for a long time, often dealing with law suits, tax issues, etc. The point is that the 9-5 worker can easily walk away and get another job. The owner often loses a lot more.
How do you figure? Starting a business (generally) requires a lot of money to lease space, make it usable for your needs, and all those employees you’re paying. Some of that can be liquidated (often at a lower amount than you got it for) other expenses you’re on the hook for. That can add up to be a lot.
Employees can be out pay, and while there’s no doubt that totally sucks, the potential losses are basically limited to how long you kept showing up to work despite no paycheck.
“Risk” in this context too often refers to the risk of a number in a portfolio going down, not somebody’s actual personal life getting messed up.
Depends on the business. I get the “line must go up” mentality in corporate environments, but I’m thinking of simple manufacturing or retail businesses where it could be as simple as “we need to sell enough coffee to pay for the tables, chairs, flooring, machines to make the coffee, etc etc etc”
Think about your job. It’s your livelihood, it (hopefully) covers all your expenses within the month, right? You’re therefore dependent on the stability of the company. A small company is not stable, meaning that workers are placed in a precarious position because their livelihood would disappear with the failure of that business. This is the math:
It’s not lost on me. But don’t forget that there’s a similar risk of negative money for the owner, and it’s not like large companies aren’t subject to layoffs with the same potential loss of paychecks.
Precarity is a defining feature of the worker’s condition under capitalism, yes. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t stratification on how precarious the situation is for individual workers. It goes homeless < gig work < temp work < small company < big company
I’m not discounting the risks taken by small business owners. However the risks to them is a damaged investment portfolio. The risk to workers is a loss of livelihood.
Many small companies are run by the owners directly. It is not just an investment. They might put their life savings into it, and work countless unpaid stressful hours. As owners there is a chance that all this effort will pay off and they’ll make good money; but there is also a good chance to lose everything, and then not have a job also. The 9-5 worker maybe loses 2-weeks salary if the bank foreclosed on the operation. The owner loses all the extra time and financial investment. They lose more if they used personal property as collateral (very common). Even after the company stops operation, the owners, as directors have to still run the financial and legal aspects for a long time, often dealing with law suits, tax issues, etc. The point is that the 9-5 worker can easily walk away and get another job. The owner often loses a lot more.