• Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    119
    ·
    9 months ago

    To be fair, they probably inherited the place and got to be the lucky person it closed down under, which probably doesn’t feel great.

    At least, it’d raise some eyebrows if its had the same owner since 1883.

    • Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      I ran a DnD campaign where an important shop was under the same owner for over 1000 years, a friendly copper dragon shapeshifted into a halfling, who discovered trading with adventurers was the best way to amass a hoard, they would go all over the world finding interesting things that they have no idea of the true value of, could you believe they’d trade this neat spider statuette that may or may not be mildly cursed for a boring old ring of protection because it “has no practical use” and it “makes them dream of the whisperings of elder gods”?

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months ago

      Inherit a business that been successful for over a hundred years, and be the one to fuck it up so badly they have to close it down? Maybe they should feel bad.

      I have no sympathy for anyone inheriting entire businesses.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        Could’ve been a long time coming. Could’ve been that the previous owners were unethical and the current ones were not. It could be any number of things. It’s not necessarily as simple as them “fucking up” and having to shut down.

      • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        something something no wrong moves and still lose

        There’s a reason that, were it ever to happen, I’d stop at SVP level and not jump to C level.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          So that you can get paid less and still have to shoulder all the blame?

          C levels don’t have to take responsibility except when it makes them look good.

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

            in my practical experience, thats not the case. it may be the case at $10B+ companies, but at <$99MM companies it’s still much safer to draw a salary.

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              What a strange statement.

              $10B+ companies, but at <$99MM

              What about companies between $100m and $9.99b?

              it’s still much safer to draw a salary.

              But ceos do pay themselves salaries.

              This barely even makes sense and I really don’t get what point you’re trying to make.

              • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I was just casually commenting that I don’t want to be in charge of a company because I’d rather the risk be on someone else’s shoulder, and then when it was implied CEOs take no risk I clarified that the type of immune to failure CEO you’re talking about are different from the average business.