Not op but I also agree with the framing assuming you add “and they provide a vital service” to both. If a vital service is being used to extract profits it should be regulated so that equal access to the vital service can be provided. If a vital service is being provided but cannot make money it should be regulated so that it can be sustained since it is vital.

Now what is vital? Is Spirit vital? That’s the hard to define part.

▲

card_zero 2 hours ago | parent [-]

1. "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay for it!"

2. "We won't pay for this, but we still want to have it!"

These are of course both fair points. Why should we "pay for" things, what's that all about? We should just naturally have the natural things that we naturally want, supplied by pixies.

▲

sailfast 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think they're both actually "We want to have this, but we don't want to pay too much for it just so a CEO can make 10,000x their workers and potentially ALSO still lose money."

	▲	eru 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		How much of the money goes to CEO vs shareholders is something they can work out between themselves. If the airline goes bankrupt, that just means that the creditors get less than they otherwise expected. That's something to haggle out between creditors and management and shareholders. (Or do you want to imply that if the shareholders saved money on CEO compensation, they would give the money to ordinary workers?)
	▲	card_zero an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Right, but what makes that viable? Something so topheavy ought to go the way of the Irish elk.