A company can remain operational for quite a while if the business owner walks out. A company has to shut down pretty much entirely if all the workers walk out

A company can remain operational for quite a while if the business owner walks out. A company has to shut down pretty much entirely if all the workers walk out. As both a worker and a business owner (and formerly an employer) I can tell you that this will always hold true. Sure, in most companies the business owner will also be the general manager or CEO of the company and actively steer the long-term trajectory and development of the company as well as manage day-to-day regulatory compliance and other concerns of "business as usual" but all of this is literally just work and owning the company is neither necessary nor sufficient for doing this work (except when it comes to legally representing the company but that too can be delegated to a person who doesn't have to be the owner). What a business owner brings to the table, like a landlord, is capital. It doesn't matter if this capital was accumulated through hard work, exploitative business practices, bank loans, inheritance or anything else. At the end of the day the difference is a business owner has capital, a worker only has their own labor to sell. I'm not sure why you're blaming employees for treating companies like "adult daycare" when you're even saying it's something you observed the development of. If you did, you surely know the origins, most prominently Google and all of its cultural copycats. Startups having foosball tables was a cliché over the past decades for a good reason. In a market where experienced and skilled developers were rare and job openings for them were plenty, companies tried to attract and retain them at any cost. Laundry services, on-site gyms and three warm meals at work meant less private life and more reliance on the company for everyday necessities, it also meant overtime was less visible because you're "living in the office" anyway. The "adult daycare" phenomenon existed as much to pamper high-value employees as to lock them in (psychologically at least) and to trick them into fully identifying with the company they work for (and give up their private life for it). It's functionally equivalent to any run of the mill cult. The crux here is that the companies didn't want to make sure the employee's family was living a good life, they wanted to make sure the employee didn't get distracted. Heck, companies like Google have sponsored freezing their employees' eggs to incentivize them delaying their family planning. There's a reason former Google employees still call themselves "Xooglers" because having worked at Google is still ingrained into their identity. Also, conveniently, all these benefits and affordances ensure employees don't think they need a union or can be told that unions would actually get in the way by asking inconvient questions or demanding separation of work time and private time or fair treatment of individuals who don't want to or can't participate in "the lifestyle".