I mean I don't want to speak for PG, so I'll just speak for myself. The thing I'm talking about (value of employees) isn't really about founders at all. I know

I mean I don't want to speak for PG, so I'll just speak for myself. The thing I'm talking about (value of employees) isn't really about founders at all. I know that society likes to hate rich people or whatever, and you seem focused on those rich founders. The point is really about how the Very Important Workers can be readily replaced by automations, which means they weren't Very Important. The company value was not derived from them. That's the end of the statement. Who deserves the value generated by the founder's idea/work/risk? That's a matter of opinion. The law already prescribes the current situation in a technical sense, so you're clearly talking about a moral sense. Morals vary by person. Your debate won't be settled anytime this century IMO.