4 ms·

"sheer size of the value extraction from employees" It is incorrect to assert that the employees are creating all the value created by a company. Companies are

by harryh 8y ago

"sheer size of the value extraction from employees" It is incorrect to assert that the employees are creating all the value created by a company. Companies are not just people but also a lot of other things: Easy to see and measure things like equipment, facilities and bank account balances. Somewhat harder to quantify but still important things like business relationships, contracts, brands and reputation. Even more effervescent but still important things like corporate culture & values; the so called "DNA" of a company. All of this stuff matters a lot and exists mostly independent of the employees. It is owned (quite literally) by the stockholders so the value accrues to them.

WalterBright 8y ago
To amplify that, I know many people who were very successful working at BigCorp. They resigned and started/joined a small company doing the same thing. They failed miserably. Never underestimate the value of the backing, resources and organization of BigCorp to one's success.
ABCLAW 8y ago
>It is incorrect to assert that the employees are creating all the value created by a company. This wasn't asserted, so it isn't really worthwhile to argue against it. Obviously other stakeholders can participant in value generation, including by providing influxes of capital. Obviously employees are going to generate more value than they capture on the whole; if they didn't, the firm would crater over time. The key here is the proportion.
- harryh 8y ago
  My apologies if I misunderstood, but your use of the term "extraction" implied (to me at least) that money accruing to shareholders was being taken out of value produced solely by employees. I agree that the key is the proportion. One way to think about this is to imagine if one of the employees in question quit and started operating independently. How much $ could they make? If it's more than they made while working for the company then the proportion taken by shareholders might indeed be too high. But if it is not more, then you've got a hard hill to climb when making your argument that the proportion is significantly off.

by harryh 8y ago

WalterBright 8y ago

To amplify that, I know many people who were very successful working at BigCorp. They resigned and started/joined a small company doing the same thing. They failed miserably. Never underestimate the value of the backing, resources and organization of BigCorp to one's success.

ABCLAW 8y ago

>It is incorrect to assert that the employees are creating all the value created by a company. This wasn't asserted, so it isn't really worthwhile to argue against it. Obviously other stakeholders can participant in value generation, including by providing influxes of capital. Obviously employees are going to generate more value than they capture on the whole; if they didn't, the firm would crater over time. The key here is the proportion.

harryh 8y ago
My apologies if I misunderstood, but your use of the term "extraction" implied (to me at least) that money accruing to shareholders was being taken out of value produced solely by employees. I agree that the key is the proportion. One way to think about this is to imagine if one of the employees in question quit and started operating independently. How much $ could they make? If it's more than they made while working for the company then the proportion taken by shareholders might indeed be too high. But if it is not more, then you've got a hard hill to climb when making your argument that the proportion is significantly off.