No, that’s not a fallacy. Your rebuttal is a bit of a fallacy because it talks about what is a “good” thing. I am not talking about good and evil or right and w

No, that’s not a fallacy. Your rebuttal is a bit of a fallacy because it talks about what is a “good” thing. I am not talking about good and evil or right and wrong. I am talking amorally about cause and effect in complex systems. Making an analogy to slavery to illustrate a moral wrong isn’t responsive to that point. Different systems produce different results. It tends to be the case that when you drastically alter the fundamental properties of a system, you won’t get the same results - because it isn’t the same system. If you want a system where a company is not the property of its shareholders, and you fail to observe that all current implementations of that idea have never demonstrated a single instance of producing Google-like companies since the industrial revolution, your ideas are not going to be very robust. If you don’t want that, sure, this is a perfectly valid position. But you are not to be taken seriously if you make these claims while earning 7 figures at Google. You haven’t even demonstrated that your ideas are viable to you, let alone all of society. And since the principles of capitalism apparently quite unironically elude you, yes, they expect their own bank account to be padded more than yours (as it must, game theory prevents the transaction otherwise), which is why they fired her. And the conditions that make Google better for them were not created exclusively by employees and especially not by employees who didn’t share the mission. Nor were they created and sustained without leadership. Nor were they created without venture capital. If you cherry pick certain properties of Google and expect to be reproduce those results, you aren’t making payroll. It is only through the right balance of incentives that such a system can function at all.