[harryh]

CamTin said "Uber and AirBnB have other investors which aren't really treated as such by the legal system" and I pointed out that this wasn't really true.

Now perhaps this is bad. Perhaps we would live in a more fair world if our legal system treated Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts differently and forced certain kinds of compensation structures on those transactions. Perhaps that would serve to create a more fair world, but that is not relevant to the point I was making.

[allenz]

CamTin was saying that workers should be considered investors in a moral sense: they put time and effort into the company and deserve a share of the profits. Obviously, workers are not investors in the literal sense.

[ElevenLathe]

I was actually trying to say something more than that workers should be considered investors, because Uber drivers and AirBnB hosts are more than just workers: they literally supply the main working capital of their respective concerns. They are owner-operators in the same sense that a taxi driver who owns his cab is, or in the same sense as an orange grower who is part of the "Florida's Natural" co-op.

Certainly workers deserve a seat at the table, and that's a fine debate to have, but surely even the most dyed-in-the-wool capitalists can agree that the owners of the capital deserve a seat at the table, and that an enterprise which by fiat excludes major capital contributors from ownership is not really a capitalist enterprise, but rather some other more exploitative form.

[harryh]

If the owners of the houses & cars want to sign over their property to AirBnB & Uber then you might have a point, but if they want to keep their property for themselves then they aren't really supplying "the main working capital of their respective concerns."

You can't have your cake and eat it too.