I'm confused why you are bringing up a basic income. I might also bring up a basic job guarantee, open borders or other random political proposals, but that's just derailing the conversation.
I agree that Hostess probably didn't offer equity. However, if it did, do you think more than a tiny number of workers would have chosen equity over cash?
Workers don't get upside if the stock does well for the same reason they don't get downside when the stock tanks. They are more risk averse and have a stronger desire for liquidity; as a result they are paid cash which satisfies their preferences.
Out of all the things that make you unhappy, which things do you think wouldn't have happened if private equity allowed Hostess to die? From what I can tell, 100% of the workers would have been laid off, the pension still would have gone bankrupt and the union would no longer exist.
I agree that Hostess probably didn't offer equity. However, if it did, do you think more than a tiny number of workers would have chosen equity over cash?
Workers don't get upside if the stock does well for the same reason they don't get downside when the stock tanks. They are more risk averse and have a stronger desire for liquidity; as a result they are paid cash which satisfies their preferences.
Out of all the things that make you unhappy, which things do you think wouldn't have happened if private equity allowed Hostess to die? From what I can tell, 100% of the workers would have been laid off, the pension still would have gone bankrupt and the union would no longer exist.
reply