• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you pay those workers significantly less than the value they contribute to the business? What would you call that?

      Independent of that, you may work in the shop, or managing it - that’s a job.

      • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Surely that depends on the individual business? Like it depends on the individual landlord? Some might be good, some might be bad. Pay is often linked to the risk you have invested in your business. A worker in a shop hasn’t taken on thousands of pounds of business loans for example have they? They don’t have to do accounting admin generally. A renter hasn’t taken on hundreds of thousands of pounds of a mortgage have they? They’re not liable for upkeep of the rental property.

        All I’m saying is that they’re good examples of landlords and bad ones. Good examples of shop owners and bad ones. Skewing the perspective to claim there are only bad is deliberately misleading.

        • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Pay is often linked to the risk you have invested in your business.

          This line is routinely trotted out by people who do not understand the very basic facts of limited liability.

          It is trivally simple to establish your business as limited by guarantee, and when done so the risk is literally £1.

          If anyone establishes a business where they are personally liable for any debts, or losses acrued, by that business then they need to seriously reconsider if business management is for them.

          Now, people may well choose to invest personal savings to start a business, rather than take out a loan, but again, rule number 1 of investing is not to invest more than you can afford to lose, so, again, the actual risk is £1.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not how it works everywhere. Also - bullshit on the actual risk being so low after investing all you can afford to lose - you just lost all you could afford to lose which could be thousands.

            The reality of it is - you rent out an apartment and need to keep it up. I had landlords come in with powerbanks and extension cords in the middle of the night when the breakers failed. I had them loaning me an AC units. They would renovate regularly.

            And I could’ve been a shitty tennant that messed their modern flat, didn’t pay them rent and refused to move out. They would lose a place they lived in for years to some rando off the street.

            • HelloThere@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re clearly American, why are you commenting on a thread about UK landlords, and UK company law, using examples not from the UK?

                  • Maalus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Because hating landlords is present on lemmy everywhere with people using completely irrellevant arguments. You also voiced an opinion that’s completely bullcrap - where losing “all the money you can spare” is somehow equal to losing nothing, when one could have worked for that for years.