Non exhausting labour


The funny thing about workers is that they pay their own bills AND the bills of the employer (assuming a company is cash flow positive), whereas the employer only puts up an initial set of funding, which gets expired, and they rely on workers for income, so why do capital owners get paid again and again for the same funding but workers don't?


The unfairness of capital. I propose labour is treated the same way as capital, as in it is non-exhausting. Whereas a capital owner is owed the capital they put in and all its growth, a labour is only entitled a single fee. This is morally and ethically wrong.

(别通知) (可选) 请,登录






You could have two kinds of equity and dilute every month based on who reinvests what.

Equity from capital and equity from value added.

The equity in issue is diluted every month but equity that wasn't served (i.e equity people are sitting on) is expired.

The idea is that management and workers gain the most equity over time and they become the de facto owners over time.

The original capital gets what they put in







Well my use of the word "exhausting" applies to the nature of work compensation. When the worker is paid for their work, the transaction is over. The work is exhausted in its utility for the worker but not for the capital owner.

Capital is the opposite, it never exhausts in its utility. Even if you are paid back for the capital, you get more of it back.

A worker contributes more work over time than capital did at the beginning. It's kind of a chain reaction that is maintained by workers.

If workers input and causes was valued and treated as capital, they would gain equity over time.

Ownership should be based on who is doing the work.

Or equity should expire.


Yes, I noticed that the term "compensation" meaning pay for cost, is problematic, and therefore, created this equity model to remedy the situation. In essence, if an employer only pays for the cost of making, they paid for your loss, and took your gain, whereas in reality, both of you added equal amount of resources -- one added those resources in terms of labor costs, another (employer) in terms of monetary costs, and got a result, which, if the payment from employer only covered the cost, then, the result should be shared in equal parts between the employer and the employed, and based on this rule, if put in legal practice, we could have a fair distribution of wealth. However, the described equity model actually solves the problem in accounting sense...

Can you explain exactly, how this would "labor as capital" be treated? According to my formula, the labor would automatically become co-ownership of shares generated by work results, and this is what I'm thinking of, when it comes to fully-fledged investment model on the Infinity family.