3 ms·

Jesus Christ. That’s not how it works! Capitalism is explicitly not about that. Holy shit this is insane that you think that’s how capitalism works on a websit

Jesus Christ. That’s not how it works! Capitalism is explicitly not about that. Holy shit this is insane that you think that’s how capitalism works on a website that’s literally about venture capital. What the fuck.

paulcole 2y ago
X and Y exist right? Why can’t you divide them to make a proportion?
- banannaise 2y ago
  Among other reasons, because the employer holds all of that information and I'm not given access to it. It's an asymmetric information problem.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    But you can for sure tell me the proportion that you think is fair right? Should it be 25%, 50%, 99%?
    - fwip 2y ago
      You're not arguing in good faith, dude.
      - try_the_bass 2y ago
        I dunno, he's asking a really basic question that should be trivial to answer. When I see a basic, level-setting question like this go unanswered, it starts to seem like the side refusing to answer is the one acting in bad faith, not the side asking the question
        banannaise 2y ago
        The answer is 100%. This brings us to the start point of the real conversation this person is trying to have, which likely centers on the nature of employment, the importance of Job Creators, and/or the infallibility of markets.
        paulcole 2y ago
        Yes, that is the real conversation. 100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for? It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide value as well but don't directly bring in money. Isn't that part of the tradeoff of working for a company that they take a "fee" for giving you dependable work? You can approach 100% value-capture by working for yourself but there are downsides there as well.
        banannaise 2y ago
        I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.) However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        > I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. So... you're describing the current system? This is so loosely defined as to describe any system, really.
        paulcole 2y ago
        You’ve just found a roundabout way to repeat the idea that you don’t like that someone else is getting what you believe to be an unfairly large piece of the pie. Because currently in the world today, the owner of the business is earning 100% of the value they provide as is the developer as is the bookkeeper. You just don’t agree with each person’s view of the value they create and don’t have a way to determine the actual value they create. So we’re back where we started. > However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward. Isn’t the funder getting earning 100% of the value they create (just like you want them to) by providing capital? If not, how do you prove otherwise?
      - paulcole 2y ago
        How so? The whole discussion stems from someone saying that they should be paid relative (in proportion to) their value. All I want to know is what proportion (i.e. a percentage between 0 and 100) someone would deem fair. Why is that so hard to provide?

paulcole 2y ago

X and Y exist right? Why can’t you divide them to make a proportion?

banannaise 2y ago
Among other reasons, because the employer holds all of that information and I'm not given access to it. It's an asymmetric information problem.
- paulcole 2y ago
  But you can for sure tell me the proportion that you think is fair right? Should it be 25%, 50%, 99%?
  - fwip 2y ago
    You're not arguing in good faith, dude.
    - try_the_bass 2y ago
      I dunno, he's asking a really basic question that should be trivial to answer. When I see a basic, level-setting question like this go unanswered, it starts to seem like the side refusing to answer is the one acting in bad faith, not the side asking the question
      - banannaise 2y ago
        The answer is 100%. This brings us to the start point of the real conversation this person is trying to have, which likely centers on the nature of employment, the importance of Job Creators, and/or the infallibility of markets.
        paulcole 2y ago
        Yes, that is the real conversation. 100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for? It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide value as well but don't directly bring in money. Isn't that part of the tradeoff of working for a company that they take a "fee" for giving you dependable work? You can approach 100% value-capture by working for yourself but there are downsides there as well.
        banannaise 2y ago
        I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.) However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.
        try_the_bass 2y ago
        > I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. So... you're describing the current system? This is so loosely defined as to describe any system, really.
        paulcole 2y ago
        You’ve just found a roundabout way to repeat the idea that you don’t like that someone else is getting what you believe to be an unfairly large piece of the pie. Because currently in the world today, the owner of the business is earning 100% of the value they provide as is the developer as is the bookkeeper. You just don’t agree with each person’s view of the value they create and don’t have a way to determine the actual value they create. So we’re back where we started. > However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward. Isn’t the funder getting earning 100% of the value they create (just like you want them to) by providing capital? If not, how do you prove otherwise?
    - paulcole 2y ago
      How so? The whole discussion stems from someone saying that they should be paid relative (in proportion to) their value. All I want to know is what proportion (i.e. a percentage between 0 and 100) someone would deem fair. Why is that so hard to provide?