So they have a lot less to risk than you do (for most investors, losing the entire investment wouldn't hurt them bad enough to force them into the work force. If you lose your job however...)
That is terrible logic. They have less exposure to personal tragedy for a given loss, but that does not in any way impact the market value of their loss. In fact, an investor experiences a real loss of assets (decreased net worth) whereas an unemployed person merely ceases monetary gain. The fact that your financial situation is dependent upon continual injection of capital is immaterial to the comparison of value lost.
If you're trying to make a social justice argument about capitalism as an economic model, that isn't relevant.
You say things like "investor experiences a real loss of assets (decreased net worth) whereas an unemployed person merely ceases monetary gain" and say my logic is terrible? The investor, in most cases, lost some number in a computer somewhere. The employee may lose his home. How can you possibly suggest that the investor lost more? In fact, if he's properly diversified it is possible that while this investment failed, he made extra somewhere else.
If you think the investors losses are more damaging to the market as a whole I still disagree. The employee was likely injecting most of their income right back into the economy. An investor is probably just buying stock from other stock holders (much safer way to make money than a business venture). Unless the stock holder is the company, this is just money changing hands between rich people, i.e. zero gain for the economy.
Your manager likely does not retain money saved on your salary for their own pocket. This could lead to a larger discussion about managerial incentives for structuring pay, but that is not salient.
It's not as simple as that. If your manager is playing junior developer salaries from his budget and getting senior developer productivity, then he'll get an awful lot of corporate credit that he'll cash in come bonus time.
