>> In the US at least, the fact of employment isn’t some gift to the laborer, which a lot of employers claim. > If you ignore the wages (direct and indirect) pa

>> In the US at least, the fact of employment isn’t some gift to the laborer, which a lot of employers claim. > If you ignore the wages (direct and indirect) paid, then sure. Otherwise, I'm not sure how you can argue that in good faith when the largest expense almost any corporation has is labour. Unless you consider employment itself being a benefit to the laborer, your statement is only reflective of expense grouping in financial statements.