3 ms·

> Possession is control, is it not? Is possession == control then control == possession. We can have a world like that, if someone worked in some role for a

> Possession is control, is it not? Is possession == control then control == possession. We can have a world like that, if someone worked in some role for a period of time we could have a legal process for them claim their proceeds of the enterprise. That sounds really complicated and it isn't the world we live in today. I think the reason the word responsibility isn't used is generally you are expected to pay for people who take responsibilities off your hands. A plumber takes responsibility for your toilet problem, if you also have a unrelated faucet problem he can take responsibility for that as well, but not for free. On the other hand, owners aren't expected to be paid like that as they profit off the overall health of the enterprise, without providing that sort of mechanism, I don't see how you have any real ownership.

lazide 3y ago
Not if the deal was that they got a flat pay rate regardless, then anyone would expect they wouldn’t be busting their ass either. If they get a bonus, then if they did a better job they’d have a right to expect a good bonus. Equity, a higher share valuation (modulo how little control there may actually be there). I think the thing you’re struggling here is with scope. For an hourly employee, the ownership extends about as far as ‘what I can do within the hour I’m there, and how can I do it the best I can’. For the plumber example, it’s owning fixing the toilet. If it breaks because they did a shitty job, it’s also taking care of making sure it’s done right. If the faucet is part of the job, it’s making sure that is done right too (or they say no, I can’t/won’t). Doing the faucet for free is stepping out of their area. More ownership, more risk, more scope (all scope sometimes) more upside/downside, less direct payment. Someone paid a salary is getting a lot of risk reduction (almost all, frankly), and it would be very odd for whoever is paying them to give up all their upside AND take all the risk of it not working.

lazide 3y ago

Not if the deal was that they got a flat pay rate regardless, then anyone would expect they wouldn’t be busting their ass either. If they get a bonus, then if they did a better job they’d have a right to expect a good bonus. Equity, a higher share valuation (modulo how little control there may actually be there). I think the thing you’re struggling here is with scope. For an hourly employee, the ownership extends about as far as ‘what I can do within the hour I’m there, and how can I do it the best I can’. For the plumber example, it’s owning fixing the toilet. If it breaks because they did a shitty job, it’s also taking care of making sure it’s done right. If the faucet is part of the job, it’s making sure that is done right too (or they say no, I can’t/won’t). Doing the faucet for free is stepping out of their area. More ownership, more risk, more scope (all scope sometimes) more upside/downside, less direct payment. Someone paid a salary is getting a lot of risk reduction (almost all, frankly), and it would be very odd for whoever is paying them to give up all their upside AND take all the risk of it not working.