The money companies use to fund projects comes from the value of employees’ labor. It would be unusual, at least in the US, for an owner/CEO to be funding company projects out of their own pocket. The company’s money comes from the employees’ efforts.
It would be unusual, at least in the US, for an owner/CEO to be funding company projects out of their own pocket
??? Bruh what. Of course many owners have to fund projects themselves. You’re thinking only of huge stock traded corpos, but there’s a lot more businesses than those lmao.
The company’s money comes from the employees’ efforts.
Yes, and the employee receives a monthly monetary compensation that was previously agreed on. The employee has 0 risk involved - if the company goes bankrupt, the employee just looks for a new job. The owner of said company might face life-long debt.
I’m gladly willing to criticize CEO pay and the stock market in general because those things are fucked up, but this tankie clowning “MIMIMI MEANS OF PRODUCTION” is so fucking cringe. Businesses are more than that, and pretending otherwise is stupid at best and dishonest at worst.
Even with small businesses, the owner’s personal funds and the company’s funds are supposed to be separate. You can get in big trouble for treating them as interchangeable. If the “company” is just you, it’s probably fine, but once you’re big enough to be employing other people, it’s a bad practice. I’ve seen friends face legal trouble because of it. And I don’t see anything tankie about acknowledging that, once you start employing other people, those people are part of the company. The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner–or more, in many cases. That’s literally why a company would want to employ multiple people.
the owner’s personal funds and the company’s funds are supposed to be separate
True for larger companies, not true for smaller start-ups without large funding backing them - at least not in most european countries I’ve been to.
And even for larger private companies - it’s still the owners money. He can take money from the company at any time or just outright liquidate it.
The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner–or more, in many cases. That’s literally why a company would want to employ multiple people.
True, but the actual question is, could the individual employee produce the same output without the companies resources? For most people, this would be a no, because if they could, they’d all be freelancers and make three times the money they make as employee - that’s what happens in IT.
A dude operating a machine for 8 hours a day is not entitled to the profit he makes since he could not do said work without the machine.
If they were born into the same wealth that their master was then sure they would.
If they were, they wouldn’t work for anyone but enjoy their life. So no, it would not be funded by anyone and there would be no product at all.
I don’t think buisness owners being lucky enough to own things
Owning things isn’t lucky. There’s countless businesses that do not inherit an emerald mine. Pretending like every business is founded because of wealth parents is stupid at best and dishonest and manipulative at worst.
Are the employees also funding the next project out of their own pockets?
The money companies use to fund projects comes from the value of employees’ labor. It would be unusual, at least in the US, for an owner/CEO to be funding company projects out of their own pocket. The company’s money comes from the employees’ efforts.
??? Bruh what. Of course many owners have to fund projects themselves. You’re thinking only of huge stock traded corpos, but there’s a lot more businesses than those lmao.
Yes, and the employee receives a monthly monetary compensation that was previously agreed on. The employee has 0 risk involved - if the company goes bankrupt, the employee just looks for a new job. The owner of said company might face life-long debt.
I’m gladly willing to criticize CEO pay and the stock market in general because those things are fucked up, but this tankie clowning “MIMIMI MEANS OF PRODUCTION” is so fucking cringe. Businesses are more than that, and pretending otherwise is stupid at best and dishonest at worst.
Even with small businesses, the owner’s personal funds and the company’s funds are supposed to be separate. You can get in big trouble for treating them as interchangeable. If the “company” is just you, it’s probably fine, but once you’re big enough to be employing other people, it’s a bad practice. I’ve seen friends face legal trouble because of it. And I don’t see anything tankie about acknowledging that, once you start employing other people, those people are part of the company. The value and utility of the company come from them as much as from the owner–or more, in many cases. That’s literally why a company would want to employ multiple people.
True for larger companies, not true for smaller start-ups without large funding backing them - at least not in most european countries I’ve been to.
And even for larger private companies - it’s still the owners money. He can take money from the company at any time or just outright liquidate it.
True, but the actual question is, could the individual employee produce the same output without the companies resources? For most people, this would be a no, because if they could, they’d all be freelancers and make three times the money they make as employee - that’s what happens in IT.
A dude operating a machine for 8 hours a day is not entitled to the profit he makes since he could not do said work without the machine.
If they were born into the same wealth that their master was then sure they would.
I don’t think buisness owners being lucky enough to own things means that workers shouldn’t get an equal share
If they were, they wouldn’t work for anyone but enjoy their life. So no, it would not be funded by anyone and there would be no product at all.
Owning things isn’t lucky. There’s countless businesses that do not inherit an emerald mine. Pretending like every business is founded because of wealth parents is stupid at best and dishonest and manipulative at worst.