No person should own any company unless they are the sole employee. Ownership should be shared with workers in equitable stakes as the company expands.
Equitable != equal. Shares can and should be distributed commiserate to input. If I work 50-60 hours a week and hire you to do 10 hours of work then obviously equal share is unfair.
However, at the same time, why do you inherently value the lawyer over the secretary? Both do a full weeks work, both are essential to the companies success. You are just attached to consumerism and the idea of hierarchy; that you should be able to be “better than” people you deem as peons. Does the janitor not deserve a fair share either because you will use some bullshit framing like “unskilled labor” to dismiss their essential contributions?
There’s clearly a varying degree of education, continuing professional development, risk profile between these two jobs. The two people need to be in their distinct role to make the place function… but it doesn’t mean that their work is equal.
Equitable != equal. Shares can and should be distributed commiserate to input. If I work 50-60 hours a week and hire you to do 10 hours of work then obviously equal share is unfair.
I think the word you’re looking for is “commensurate.” To commiserate is to feel or express sympathy for someone’s suffering or unhappiness.
To point, who decides the value of input? You or them? Hours worked != value. Some people work faster and are more skilled. They’re obviously providing more value. I like to work hard and go home at a reasonable hour. Some of my colleagues like to fuck around on Facebook and spend longer hours at the office. Our work is not the same. Then you have the question of different skills. You can’t tell me a secretary’s skills are as valuable as that of a specialised attorney with 40 years of experience.
The problem with your command economy approach is that it’s impossible to dictate the value of each person’s labour. That’s why we leave it up to individuals and companies to reach an agreement on the value of their labour themselves. I like unions to balance negotiating power, but they’re also imperfect. Ultimately it’s the customer who decides the value of labour. They buy products and services they think are worth it. I know how much remuneration Tim Cook receives and yet I till buy iPhones because I think the value he provides is extremely high. I bet you also purchase products and services from companies in which executives are paid a lot. You’re free to stop, but you won’t, because you believe the products and services are valuable and you support the remuneration packages of their executives, even when you LARP as a communist on Lemmy.
Do you know of many law firms that only consist of secretaries?
You are just attached to consumerism and the idea of hierarchy; that you should be able to be “better than” people you deem as peons. Does the janitor not deserve a fair share either because you will use some bullshit framing like “unskilled labor” to dismiss their essential contributions?
In your example, if I don’t personally know them then they must not exist? In my example, they cannot exist.
Again, you don’t know me well enough to get my idea of fun. Were I you, I’d stop trying to cast random strangers on the internet as your personal demons.
Another medal contender for Conclusion Jumping, but I honestly can appreciate the sentiment. I was just asking the dude to figure out how crazy his idea really was.
No person should own any company unless they are the sole employee. Ownership should be shared with workers in equitable stakes as the company expands.
So a lawyer hires a secretary, they each get 50% of the company. Or are you cool with uneven ownership shares in your model?
Equitable != equal. Shares can and should be distributed commiserate to input. If I work 50-60 hours a week and hire you to do 10 hours of work then obviously equal share is unfair.
However, at the same time, why do you inherently value the lawyer over the secretary? Both do a full weeks work, both are essential to the companies success. You are just attached to consumerism and the idea of hierarchy; that you should be able to be “better than” people you deem as peons. Does the janitor not deserve a fair share either because you will use some bullshit framing like “unskilled labor” to dismiss their essential contributions?
There’s clearly a varying degree of education, continuing professional development, risk profile between these two jobs. The two people need to be in their distinct role to make the place function… but it doesn’t mean that their work is equal.
I think the word you’re looking for is “commensurate.” To commiserate is to feel or express sympathy for someone’s suffering or unhappiness.
To point, who decides the value of input? You or them? Hours worked != value. Some people work faster and are more skilled. They’re obviously providing more value. I like to work hard and go home at a reasonable hour. Some of my colleagues like to fuck around on Facebook and spend longer hours at the office. Our work is not the same. Then you have the question of different skills. You can’t tell me a secretary’s skills are as valuable as that of a specialised attorney with 40 years of experience.
The problem with your command economy approach is that it’s impossible to dictate the value of each person’s labour. That’s why we leave it up to individuals and companies to reach an agreement on the value of their labour themselves. I like unions to balance negotiating power, but they’re also imperfect. Ultimately it’s the customer who decides the value of labour. They buy products and services they think are worth it. I know how much remuneration Tim Cook receives and yet I till buy iPhones because I think the value he provides is extremely high. I bet you also purchase products and services from companies in which executives are paid a lot. You’re free to stop, but you won’t, because you believe the products and services are valuable and you support the remuneration packages of their executives, even when you LARP as a communist on Lemmy.
Do you know of many law firms that only consist of secretaries?
You can fuck off with this.
Do you know many successful law firms that don’t have administrative support?
Have fun finding ways to arbitrarily make yourself feel superior to people that are working just as hard if not harder
In your example, if I don’t personally know them then they must not exist? In my example, they cannot exist.
Again, you don’t know me well enough to get my idea of fun. Were I you, I’d stop trying to cast random strangers on the internet as your personal demons.
To be fair, I bet there’s some lawyers that couldn’t function without a secretary.
Idea is not flawless, therefore it is worthless.
Another medal contender for Conclusion Jumping, but I honestly can appreciate the sentiment. I was just asking the dude to figure out how crazy his idea really was.