[adgjlsfhk1]

Wealth is an incentive for wealth aggregation those aren't the same thing. More wealth would be created if companies payed their workers more (since poor people actually need the money to pay for things)

[aww_dang]

Businesses don't create value by overcompensating employees. Without the profit incentive for the entrepreneur there is no business. The consumer's problems are not solved, no jobs are provided and no value is created.

In some cases it does make sense for employers to increase compensation. Especially when productivity is high. Usually productivity gains are a result of innovation, which is incentivized by the profit motive.

https://www.npr.org/2014/01/27/267145552/the-middle-class-to...

[wpietri]

> Without the profit incentive for the entrepreneur there is no business.

This just isn't true. I have entrepreneurs on both sides of family going back at least 3 generations. Many of them were happy just to create something and make a decent living.

As an example, look at Bob's Red Mill, a 500+ person company in Oregon. The owner recently turned the whole thing over to his employees: https://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/2010/02/bobs_red_...

You could also look at worker-owned co-ops. In SF, Arizmendi is a very successful string of worker-owned bakeries: https://arizmendibakery.com/faq

Or take a look at the Zingerman's community of businesses in Ann Arbor, MI: https://www.zingermanscommunity.com/about-us/a-bit-of-zinger...

The founder, Ari Weinzweig very clearly doesn't give a shit about the profit incentive. I recommend his book, "A Lapsed Anarchist's Approach to Building a Great Business": https://www.zingermans.com/Product/zingermans-guide-to-good-...

I grant that part of corporate America's civic religion is pretending that greed is the only possible motivator for anything good. And maybe that's true for some people. But if you talk with actual entrepreneurs, especially ones outside the tech filter bubble, their true motivations are rarely about a chance at vast riches.

[aww_dang]

The profit incentive remains. The ends to which they apply those profits are up to the individual entrepreneurs. There's nothing wrong in my view with worker owned businesses, as long as it is a voluntary arrangement. From where I stand these businesses are entirely valid options which can exist in a free market. Where you paint them as as in conflict with the profit incentive or a 'civic religion of greed', you branch off into pure hyperbole.

[wpietri]

It's far from hyperbole. Wealth accumulation is a motivation for some. But it's just not central to a great deal of entrepreneurship and innovation. I know one guy who started a billion-dollar company, and his take on profit was entirely utilitarian: "Profit is permission to continue", meaning that it's just an indicator that the business is self-sustaining.

[aww_dang]

This is just subjective value, again. He wants permission to continue, thus he wants profits. From there we can conclude that there is a profit motive.