Non exhausting labour

+1  

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?

YAML 想法

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

你可以拥有两种股权,每个月根据谁再投资什么来稀释。

来自资本的权益和来自增值的权益。

发行的股权每个月都会被稀释,但未提供的股权(即人们所持有的股权)已过期。

这个想法是管理层和工人随着时间的推移获得最多的股权,随着时间的推移他们成为事实上的所有者。

原始资本得到他们投入的东西

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


好吧,我对“筋疲力尽”一词的使用适用于工作补偿的性质。当工人的工作得到报酬时,交易就结束了。这项工作对工人的效用已经耗尽,但对资本所有者却没有。

资本则相反,它的效用永远不会耗尽。即使你得到了资本的回报,你也会得到更多的回报。

随着时间的推移,工人贡献的工作比资本一开始的贡献多。这是一种由工人维持的连锁反应。

如果工人的投入和事业被重视并被视为资本,他们将随着时间的推移获得公平。

所有权应该基于谁在做这项工作。

或者股权应该到期。

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.


是的,我注意到“补偿”一词意味着支付成本,这是有问题的,因此创建了[此股权模型](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLdPmZAYiXM

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.


语言