3 ms·
>Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people Th
by econcon 7y ago
>Is that true? Maybe, but I guess it hinges on your definition of "exploit". I think you can make money (in theory, of any amount) without exploiting people
There would be no excess for the founder if you distribute all the money that a company operation makes evenly to all employees and owners.
That's what they mean when they summon the world "exploit".
Roman slaves weren't exploited in the ways some layman might imagine.
- vzcx 7y agoFounders are typically the first and primary owners, at least initially... Is the objection that founders and investors get a larger slice? People have a strange reaction to the word 'exploit.' It smells bad, and it gives the sense that those using the term want something to smell bad. 'Exploit' just means 'to make productive use of' to me. Musk 'exploited' his workers? Good. Theyre making cool stuff. That's what he should be doing. A company 'exploited' a uranium deposit? Good. We need those hot rocks for fuel rods.
- econcon 7y agoI also own a company but many times who work for us often have similar ideas like "owners are taking too much, they are stealing from us".