I have no problem with selling my labour for money as long as I’m fairly compensated for it.
If you are working for a salary, you are never fairly compensated. If you received the value you actually produced, your boss can’t make a profit. Profit is only possible by a exploitation.
The intensity of said exploitation is a spectrum, there is a huge difference between having some savings and disposable income versus barely surviving. I also make a decently comfortable living as a software engineer but I’m still a crippling accident away from losing it all and depending on disability benefits.
While what you’re saying is typically true, it’s not inherently built into the system. I work in a company owned by two friends. They own the company because they took out loans with their houses as security in order to finance the lease of an office space, buying work stations, and hiring themselves and me. I work on the same stuff as them, for the same hours, and make the same salary as them.
If the company goes to shit, they have craploads of debt, while I don’t. We have a contract ensuring that I get a fair share of whatever comes in, including options to buy myself into the company at the same rate as what they initially invested once I can afford it. Nobody here is making excess money of others work. I have no reason to believe I’m being scammed.
Again, what you’re saying is true in 99+ % of cases, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s nothing preventing a company from deciding that profits are split evenly among all employees (with the owners also acting as employees).
This is the only point I disagree with you. Your situation is extremely rare and exists because of the cool founders, and despite the economic system. There is nothing stopping them from exploiting new hires as the company grows. In fact, “free market” encourages cost cutting and aggressive competition.
If you are working for a salary, you are never fairly compensated. If you received the value you actually produced, your boss can’t make a profit. Profit is only possible by a exploitation.
The intensity of said exploitation is a spectrum, there is a huge difference between having some savings and disposable income versus barely surviving. I also make a decently comfortable living as a software engineer but I’m still a crippling accident away from losing it all and depending on disability benefits.
While what you’re saying is typically true, it’s not inherently built into the system. I work in a company owned by two friends. They own the company because they took out loans with their houses as security in order to finance the lease of an office space, buying work stations, and hiring themselves and me. I work on the same stuff as them, for the same hours, and make the same salary as them.
If the company goes to shit, they have craploads of debt, while I don’t. We have a contract ensuring that I get a fair share of whatever comes in, including options to buy myself into the company at the same rate as what they initially invested once I can afford it. Nobody here is making excess money of others work. I have no reason to believe I’m being scammed.
Again, what you’re saying is true in 99+ % of cases, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There’s nothing preventing a company from deciding that profits are split evenly among all employees (with the owners also acting as employees).
This is the only point I disagree with you. Your situation is extremely rare and exists because of the cool founders, and despite the economic system. There is nothing stopping them from exploiting new hires as the company grows. In fact, “free market” encourages cost cutting and aggressive competition.