# One Last Attempt At Understanding \[investment\] Risk

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-last-attempt-at-understanding-investment-risk/577711>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 8, 2011, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-last-attempt-at-understanding-investment-risk/577711 "2011-04-08T20:12:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 39

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-last-attempt-at-understanding-investment-risk/577711/39 "2011-04-09T22:12:53Z")

</div>

> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Could someone reading this thread who said the dishwasher is entitled to more than the agreed-on wage please raise their hand here, so I can more easily go find the relevant post?
> 
> Thanks…

Interesting you should ask:

> [@Understanding Risk](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/understanding-risk/576302/258):
>
> Are there literal-first-and-last-name dishwashers anyone can cite that demanded profit sharing? Of course not. But there are proxies for them who feel what is rightfully owed them. Examples:
> 
> **Frylock**  
> I’m someone who sometimes finds himself thinking workers should get a share of the profits.
> 
> **Voyager**  
> The big problem with the OP is that it assumes that only the investor deserves upside benefit. If the restaurant is a success, the reason isn’t that her money is any greener than anyone elses. The more an employee can contribute to the success, the more that employee deserves of the upside benefit.
> 
> **Chronos**  
> But why would risk be the only thing that deserves profit? The chef might not have much risk himself, but the quality of the food he makes is going to change how much risk there is to the owner. If you’ve got a really good chef who turns your restaurant from being an iffy proposition to a sure thing, doesn’t he deserve a reward for that?
> 
> **Whack-a-Mole**  
> Workers ARE the company. … As such it is not improper to expect the owners to see that their labor benefits from the success of the company.
> 
> Are any of these posters an actual “dishwasher”? I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s irrelevant to the debate. However, you can bet the many dishwashers believe profits (beyond their salaries) also belong to them and the posters here are speaking on their behalf.
> 
> If there was a debate about universal health care, it’d be like asking if anyone knows any citizen that demanded a free health care card at their state driver’s license office. WE ALL KNOW THAT SCENARIO PROBABLY DIDN’T HAPPEN. That silly debate technique is just trying to shut down the discussion in a childish way.
> 
> Once again, the OP isn’t trying to correct a dishwasher’s flawed legal interpretation of status quo corporate laws. The idea is to argue against the _beliefs_ exhibited by the 4 posters (and any silent “virtual dishwashers” that agree with them). That is the _spirit_ of the debate. If you don’t want to participate, you don’t have to.

To suggests workers should get a share of the profits is no different than suggesting the tenant should get a share of the proceeds in this sale.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-last-attempt-at-understanding-investment-risk/577711)._