4 ms·
This same argument also applies to owners. If the org makes $100k in revenue and the owners take $10k of that, why don't you just leave to start your own firm a
by tjs8rj 4y ago
This same argument also applies to owners. If the org makes $100k in revenue and the owners take $10k of that, why don't you just leave to start your own firm and keep it all?
It's because there ARE contributions from the owner, even a passive owner has what I called "dividends from stored labor": they took on the risk, created a functioning company solving a problem, did the work of organizing the systems/structure that run the thing, and so they are entitled to a piece of the revenue as well (as that revenue couldn't have been earned without their contributions either).
- tsimionescu 4y agoNo one says that owners are not entitled to a piece of the revenue, obviously they are, and doubly so when they are also doing their own work for the company. My point was that owners currently get a disproportionately large piece, and that the gap between what owners get vs what workers get has been widening with time. And not only is it widening, but it is doing so while the relative contributions to the business' success are often narrowing (give the huge increases in worker productivity in most domains).