Why is it the owner of a company should make 1000:1 on the workers just because he came up with the idea for a company...

Why is it the owner of a company should make 1000:1 on the workers just because he came up with the idea for a company. Why don't the workers hire people with the ideas and give them an incentive to get hired that way everyone is happy?

they aren't paid more because they own the idea they're paid more because they own the capital

o weird. so why dont the workers own the capital.

It's not about having the idea. it's about finding a niche, absorbing risks, providing capital, managing the company, networking, putting in 14h/day, etc.

Have you ever read even ONE book on entrepreneurship or are you just talking out of your ass? Nevermind, I know the answer.

why can't you still do that?

because they didn't borrow it, or their parents didn't give it to them, or they didn't earn it

yeah but why don't they just take it

Then do it. I dare you.

Because that would be stealing.

>Why shouldn't they steal it?
Because then the capitalist would retaliate with force.

>What if the thieves use more force and successfully steal the capital?
Then you create negative incentives in the system that prevent free enterprise... which eventually make creation of new capital pointless for individuals.

Thus, eventually there will be no new capital to steal.

i didn't say me i said them

why don't the thieves take it and then keep better more fair incentives

if an amazon worker put half his salary into amazon stock he'd be a very rich person...

yeah but they can't because they are living on food stamps and need to pay the rent.

You mean like higher pay?

You're thinking about this from the wrong angle. How much training and education do you think is needed to serve Starbucks latttes vs. managing the entire company?
Salaries are paid according to the availability of qualified labor. Companies that underpay or overpay their employees are punished via their competitors.

I beg you, read a book on Basic Economics before you read Marx.

Try it user. Report back.

no no. the thieves take the capital and use it between themselves and keep the incentive business owners have now but make it less and more fair by changing the structure

I don’t know bong, why don’t you own a chemical manufacturing company?

yeah but why cant the people that serve lattes hire the guy who manages the company?

>Companies that underpay or overpay their employees are punished via their competitors.

That's why wages aren't rising right but the cost of living is.

Like what incentives?

i can't afford to make one. if i only worked at one. killed the boss and we all kept running the business then i could own one.

less money but still more money than you would make by working with your hands. 100:1 or 10:1 instead of 1000:1

because if the fucking workers were smart enough to come up with the idea to begin with then they would BE the business owners. you dipshit

Prove it.

You put your ass on the line by founding a company. A worker gets hired and can quit/leave without losing any investment at all. Simple risk-reward.

So that means they should make 1000:1 because the money they got loaned from the bank or daddy might be gone?

Also nice false flag

Again, where the money comes from doesn't really matter. Investing it in a business means risking it all and then some.

Okay, but how do you make sure you attract the best owners possible? Having a bad captain makes all the difference.

the same way you hire managers now.

>they aren't paid more because they own the idea
yes they are, retard.

You are false flagging right? The owner puts up the money but the worker has to spend his time working. How do you choose which one is more fair?

I like these two reddit arguments.

"The idea with the risk argument is that capitalists put forward capital, which is essential to having a productive process at all. It hinges on the idea that only capitalists can put forward capital. The answer here should be, why do capitalists have the capital? Why isn't this something workers themselves can do? More the the point, why are workers excluded from the control of capital? What historical processes have led to the accumulation of capital in the hands of capitalists?"

"If someone works hard and saves up a lot of money, he should have the right to become a slave owner. He also takes lots of risks buying a slave, and without full ownership nobody would want to buy any new slaves."

and also this Thomas Sowell quote

"However necessary and justified capitalists' revenue may be within the system of capitalism, that is hardly relevant when the issue is whether that whole system should continue or be superseded by a different system. A king may play a vital role in a system of monarchy, but that is irrelevant when debating the relative merits of monarchies versus republics. "

If you don't like it then make your own company and don't take as much money out of it.

I can't afford to make a new company because I work for a living.

because the hard part is managing the company, not serving lattes, the manager has leverage. they would still have to pay him what his labor is worth or he could choose not to work for them.

how do you propose you simultaneously run the business and operate the machinery? you sound like a child.

that's not really an answer.

>the worker HAS to spend his time working
This isn't true. A business owner is either all in or all out. They either start the business and risk their investment or they don't at all. Workers can leave at any time without any financial repercussions other than lost wages.

>Slavery strawman
>Anti-capitalist invoking Sowell

Capitalists exists where people have needs.
Do you eat one meal a lifetime?
Do you drink one glass of water?
Do you watch one film?
Do you read one book?
Are there finite amount of immortal beings on this earth with no needs and no requirements in regards to entertainment and sustenance?
Or is there an endless swarming supply of new people and new needs rejuvenated with a lifetimes worth of needs each generation?

Think about it for more than half a second and you'll realise how fucking retarded you sound.

You're an idiot. Everybody has ideas. The successful ones create businesses. Nobody, nobody at all would pay to bring somebody elses idea to market.

Well, the way businesses hire high tier managers is to offer extremely competitive compensation. If they don't, their competition will.

Why don't you just work at a company, do a lot of good work so you can demand high compensation, save money, then take what you learned at that business to apply it and start your own company?

Extremely successful companies frequently produce extremely successful entrepreneurs who start their own businesses after leaving. That's what I did at a company I worked at. If you want to start a business the best education you can get is not business school but to work at one of the best companies in your industry because those companies hire the best management talent and you will learn from them the best practices to run a business with.

you sound like a child, the reason business owners get paid more are two-fold:
1) the owners paid for everything to start and run the business. they typically don't start to draw a paycheck until the business has been profitable for a while (read years).
2) the workers agreed to work for so little. if they wanted more, they would negotiate for more. however, the owner gets to choose to accept or decline whether or not to pay what they are asking for. since their labor is not extremely skilled (serving lattes), there are more people who can do the job and the price of the labor goes down. simple supply and demand.

Good point.
The traditional corporate models are being challenged as we speak.
Start your own company and try it out.

>Capitalists exist where people have needs.
No, they really do not. Capitalists exist where this opportunity to exploit a want, not simply where a want exists.

If your reward as a capitalist for securing capital to produce goods is to have your capital seized, then it is no longer beneficial for you to secure capital. Thus, you will either not secure capital, leave the market, or change the system to promote your capital.

>has time to type on Sup Forums
>doesn't have time to file articles of incorporation

i'm not buying it user.

Because the owner of the business provides the capital goods for the business to function like the machines and building. They also serve as the executive of the company, weighing options to maximize profit.

The worker's responsibility is to be a cog in the machine of the business, the owners responsibility is to guide the business and keep it from ruin. They get paid 1000:1 because that shit is a full-time plus job and is very stressful. Very few people have the skills to do it effectively.

yeah you can. you can go on craigslist right now and find people giving away stuff for free, then list it for sale on facebook marketplace or another similar site. you can take the skills you have an establish a one person consultancy. you can save money you make at your job until you have enough seed cash to risk it on a business.

what you're saying is "i can't start a company because i'm risk-averse". no risk no reward, communist.

Sowell is talking about entrenched money, or an oligopoly. Capitalism does not prop up corrupt owners when more competitive rivals can undercut their greed.

This board is 18+, at least attempt to come off as an adult

Where exactly are you going to find this nebulous congregation of workers to jointly decide to create a business all together, then have all of those people agree on a single manager? Who is finding all of these people with their different skillsets to take up the different jobs this company that doesn't exist yet would require?

The entire idea seems to assume that you could create a business literally in reverse.

People on top get PAIDDDD because they make big decisions. Peons don't understand how difficult that really is. Most of you would wet yourselves everyday with that kind of responsibility.

Posting in a lefty/pol/ bread
Sage

>being this retarded
economic value isn't distributed evenly among all individuals. some(most) people are genuinely worthless, and others are exceptionally talented. corporate hierarchies reflect this

nice leading self bump faggot