4 ms·

It's not about 70K minimum wage. It's about a more fair distribution of wealth. Why funnel profits towards shareholders or owners who usually do no work when al

It's not about 70K minimum wage. It's about a more fair distribution of wealth. Why funnel profits towards shareholders or owners who usually do no work when all that extra wealth can be redeployed back to the people who actually run the business: employees. Ironically what is unsustainable is not redistributing wealth towards labor. What is unsustainable is concentrating wealth towards a few people who contribute no work.

sokoloff 11y ago
If being an owner is so low-effort and low-risk, why not just found a company instead of working for someone else? It's because it's hard and risky work to start a company. Your observation of the company owner not doing any work is a temporal discrepancy not a difference in overall risk and effort (IMO).
- giltleaf 11y ago
  I think he was referencing more shareholders and owners like Lucas (who was given "menial tasks"). Absentee owners is absolutely a common thing in all walks of business.
- Avshalom 11y ago
  There's owners and then there's owners. With a publicly traded company 'owner' is any one with enough cash lying around to buy a share. Then there's also owners who did a lot of hard risky work several decades ago, now insulated from that by layers of management, but don't contribute any more value to the company right-now than any project manager or warehouse supervisor. Or ownership via nepotism which is a bit of a crap shoot. Sometimes sons and daughters work their ass off; some times they're just barely competent enough to not cause a revolt when given the keys.
  - whatok 11y ago
    In your second example, the company literally would not exist without the founder. If you divide up the "value" the act of creating a company provides over the lifespan of the company, it will likely eclipse the value a project manager or warehouse supervisor presently provides.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      The company is the sum of it's parts: The employees. Employees exist without the founder or the company. Thus, the value still exists within the economy, it is just the distribution is different as said employees are producing value in other sectors of the economy. When a founder forms a company he is not creating value. He is redeploying existing labor to do OTHER things. Whether that creates new value is a separate issue as said labor could create new value wherever it was before. Additionally, the founder is also creating a new corporate pyramid structure that funnels a lot of the redeployed wealth from this labor towards the people sitting on top: Whether that be himself or shareholders. Let's say there are two companies. Company A and Company B. Company A is a established company and Company B is a startup. Lets also say there is one worker, named Chris. When Chris works for company A his work output is 20$ a day. Let's say Chris changes his job and moves to company B. You're telling me that Company B by virtue of being a startup makes chris's work output suddenly equivalent to 100$? Tell me what magic makes this the case? What is it that makes it so new value is created out of thin air? It's not physically possible. In fact it's stupid to think that just by creating a startup you're creating value. You're just redeploying labor. So where does new value come from if not just from a company by virtue of being a startup? The answer: When new technology or new innovations are created that fundamentally change the infrastructure of the economy so that it can be more efficient. It can happen from ANY company and it can even happen from government, it does not have to come from a startup. Examples: Apple: iphone, military: internet. To tell you the truth, most startups amount to shit. If anything the majority of startups redeploy labor onto endeavors that amount to nothing. Usually big corporations more effectively redeploy labor. Could any random startup do what apple did to the phone industry? Probably, but waay less likely.
      - whatok 11y ago
        Your second paragraph is utter nonsense. A productive business absolutely creates value. History is littered with examples of entire brand new industries birthed by the sole creation of a single company. The pie literally grows larger. This doesn't create value? By "existing labor" voluntarily "redeploying" themselves, they are in complete recognition of that fact and want to partake in the additional value created.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    IMO, even the owner of a share of common stock is merely a one-for-one replacement of the person(s) who originally put up the capital and took the risk originally, so they get the same standing in my book. If person A takes the risk, founds and grows the company and then sells their stake to person B, person B has purchased the claim that person A once held. If person A was entitled to the rewards for prior work without current effort, they can reasonably sell that claim to person B, whereupon B is entitled to those rewards (at the risk of the capital B put up). In fact, being able to do so is critical to the current funding structure for many ventures (because it provides liquidity for person A, increasing the EV for A to originally start, because they can get liquidity later rather than having to hold the share for eternity to receive the value they created). (I realize that not everyone will share this point of view, which is OK.)
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      risk taken 4 years ago is not worth the same as risk taken today. If they want to make it fair, share value should slowly bleed and be distributed to labor over time. If a laborer can accrue shareholder value over time. Non laborers should lose it with time.
rgrieselhuber 11y ago
Founders and shareholders take on risk and create value by providing sweat equity and capital.
mariodiana 11y ago
You could, of course, funnel profits towards expanding the business; unless, of course, you lack the acumen to do so.

sokoloff 11y ago

If being an owner is so low-effort and low-risk, why not just found a company instead of working for someone else? It's because it's hard and risky work to start a company. Your observation of the company owner not doing any work is a temporal discrepancy not a difference in overall risk and effort (IMO).

giltleaf 11y ago
I think he was referencing more shareholders and owners like Lucas (who was given "menial tasks"). Absentee owners is absolutely a common thing in all walks of business.
Avshalom 11y ago
There's owners and then there's owners. With a publicly traded company 'owner' is any one with enough cash lying around to buy a share. Then there's also owners who did a lot of hard risky work several decades ago, now insulated from that by layers of management, but don't contribute any more value to the company right-now than any project manager or warehouse supervisor. Or ownership via nepotism which is a bit of a crap shoot. Sometimes sons and daughters work their ass off; some times they're just barely competent enough to not cause a revolt when given the keys.
- whatok 11y ago
  In your second example, the company literally would not exist without the founder. If you divide up the "value" the act of creating a company provides over the lifespan of the company, it will likely eclipse the value a project manager or warehouse supervisor presently provides.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    The company is the sum of it's parts: The employees. Employees exist without the founder or the company. Thus, the value still exists within the economy, it is just the distribution is different as said employees are producing value in other sectors of the economy. When a founder forms a company he is not creating value. He is redeploying existing labor to do OTHER things. Whether that creates new value is a separate issue as said labor could create new value wherever it was before. Additionally, the founder is also creating a new corporate pyramid structure that funnels a lot of the redeployed wealth from this labor towards the people sitting on top: Whether that be himself or shareholders. Let's say there are two companies. Company A and Company B. Company A is a established company and Company B is a startup. Lets also say there is one worker, named Chris. When Chris works for company A his work output is 20$ a day. Let's say Chris changes his job and moves to company B. You're telling me that Company B by virtue of being a startup makes chris's work output suddenly equivalent to 100$? Tell me what magic makes this the case? What is it that makes it so new value is created out of thin air? It's not physically possible. In fact it's stupid to think that just by creating a startup you're creating value. You're just redeploying labor. So where does new value come from if not just from a company by virtue of being a startup? The answer: When new technology or new innovations are created that fundamentally change the infrastructure of the economy so that it can be more efficient. It can happen from ANY company and it can even happen from government, it does not have to come from a startup. Examples: Apple: iphone, military: internet. To tell you the truth, most startups amount to shit. If anything the majority of startups redeploy labor onto endeavors that amount to nothing. Usually big corporations more effectively redeploy labor. Could any random startup do what apple did to the phone industry? Probably, but waay less likely.
    - whatok 11y ago
      Your second paragraph is utter nonsense. A productive business absolutely creates value. History is littered with examples of entire brand new industries birthed by the sole creation of a single company. The pie literally grows larger. This doesn't create value? By "existing labor" voluntarily "redeploying" themselves, they are in complete recognition of that fact and want to partake in the additional value created.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  IMO, even the owner of a share of common stock is merely a one-for-one replacement of the person(s) who originally put up the capital and took the risk originally, so they get the same standing in my book. If person A takes the risk, founds and grows the company and then sells their stake to person B, person B has purchased the claim that person A once held. If person A was entitled to the rewards for prior work without current effort, they can reasonably sell that claim to person B, whereupon B is entitled to those rewards (at the risk of the capital B put up). In fact, being able to do so is critical to the current funding structure for many ventures (because it provides liquidity for person A, increasing the EV for A to originally start, because they can get liquidity later rather than having to hold the share for eternity to receive the value they created). (I realize that not everyone will share this point of view, which is OK.)
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    risk taken 4 years ago is not worth the same as risk taken today. If they want to make it fair, share value should slowly bleed and be distributed to labor over time. If a laborer can accrue shareholder value over time. Non laborers should lose it with time.

rgrieselhuber 11y ago

Founders and shareholders take on risk and create value by providing sweat equity and capital.

mariodiana 11y ago

You could, of course, funnel profits towards expanding the business; unless, of course, you lack the acumen to do so.