that leads to the company going bankrupt

no dude the workers vote for management and you can have *policy for retrenchments*

If people dont like the retrenchments, bad luck

next AGM they can vote on it

it isnt that simple

if they run the business into the ground, *they lose their job*

people will run the business for their own benefit (to keep their jobs)

actually lets think about like this bro

say you have 1000 workers

directors usually look to keep the company afloat

and you have $10000 in profit

each worker gets $10

if you fire 100 people

theres 900 people sharing $10000

guess what

*theyve increased their wages*

it doesent work like that

yes it fucking does

so the argument goes both ways

if you fire the workforce, then the output would also decrese

yes so they cant fire everyone

decreased output= less profit

less profit= lower wages

theyre incentivised to fire the optimal amount

if they fire too many, they lose wages

if they keep too many, they lose wages

that is already done EVERYWHERE

except in this system, the workers have it better

thats how modern businesses are run

YES

so stop arguing against it

they already have the worker number in check

no but dude, in the modern system, a higher share of the profits goes to the shareholders who dont work

and they re-structure when needed

if you dont have to ship off billions to shareholders, you get more for the workers

@Green Syndicalism because thats called an investment

yep and if you change the nature of investment from favouring couch potato old fucks, to giving the workers the capital, you get a *better and happier workforce*

workers just have no capital

these potatoes have hundreds of millions

even billions

thats my fucking point