[beaconstudios]

To take a minimal case for an example - if I hire two people, pay them $20,000 each to produce widgets and then sell those widgets for $100,000 a year respectively, and keep the remaining $60,000, would you consider that exploitation considering that I contribute nothing to the continued economic activity? This is the form of exploitation I was referring to.

For a contrasting example, I prefer cooperatives where the people involved in the business control it democratically (which can still include directors and managers).

[tomcam]

Do you consider it exploitation when someone voluntarily takes the $20,000 job? Is it exploitation when the person who risked the money to start the business loses it all and goes bankrupt?

How is providing the two jobs not contributing to the economy?

How do you clear $60,000 on widgets? What about the costs of supplies, insurance, compliance to government regulations, city/state/county/federal taxes, import duties,R&D, documentation, advertising, and so on?

[beaconstudios]

Exploitation isn't when somebody is forced to do something, it's when one person profits off the work of another. So in my example, the job is exploitative, yes. Having a business fail is not exploitation.

I didn't make an argument about whether it was contributing to the economy or not, but that doesn't matter - slavery contributed to the economy too, but it's also morally wrong.

It's a stripped down hypothetical on purpose, to get to the heart of the question. Non-labour material concerns are left as an exercise for the reader.

[erik_seaberg]

I am borrowing the shareholders’ big investment to amplify the value of my own work. I’m not taking any risk and I’m not paying them, instead they are paying me more than I could earn without them.

> one person profits off the work of another

Trade needs to benefit both parties.

[tomcam]

> Exploitation isn't when somebody is forced to do something, it's when one person profits off the work of another.

We live in different world. Thank you for your response.

[beaconstudios]

If by that you mean we have different understandings of the word "exploitation" then sure thing. But my definition is the dictionary one:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/exploita...

> the act of using someone unfairly for your own advantage

But we probably just disagree on the meaning of "unfairly" within that definition.

[adampk]

Again, I am not trying to to defend the counter but am I missing something or is there quit a large logical gap in your hypothetical?

I assume if I am doing the hiring, then I will also be responsible for the additional hiring/firing, selecting the right talent, choosing the right way to compete against existing product/services? Is that not continued activity as I grow my start-up into a category-defining enterprise? How to allocate that profit, into R&D, more people, sales, etc, aka growing a company?

Then after doing that for 10 years that company is now worth billions of dollars and I own it. I don't see where in this chain I have done the exploiting?

[beaconstudios]

So what you're describing is the work of a director - work that should be paid but that I intentionally excluded from my example because a lot of people just think by default that directors should "own" the company because that's the status quo.

I still think that directors should be well compensated commensurate with their capability and role. I just think that they shouldn't be able to exclusively control and take the profits generated by the work of everybody involved. Corporations are autocratic or oligarchic in that way - this leads to the select few that society seems worthy of profit control having more power in our society. This is because the owners can keep workers' wages as low as the market will sustain while inflating their own total compensation to absurd proportions, as we've seen. With a cooperative structure everybody involved has a stake in controlling the company, so executives have to take everybody's needs including the workers, into account, instead of just looking out for themselves and investors.

As for where the exploitation comes in - it probably comes down to different perspectives on the word. To me, it's exploitation if one person is profiting off the labour of another. Of course in a company the shareholders are often also working, but if a company grows to a billion dollars from a million its not because the directors are working 100x harder.

[adampk]

In this hypothetical I thought we were talking about a founder-operator. It seems like your point does not work in this case?

[beaconstudios]

A founder-operator has two roles in the company - as owner, being the founder and thus a shareholder, and as director or whatever work role they have. I only take issue with the former part as I think people should have a say in how the company they are a part of is run. Directorship is still a skilled job that should be compensated thusly.

[adampk]

Ah I think we got to the core thank you.

You believe that when you join an organization you automatically have a say in how it is run.

[beaconstudios]

I think that an organisation is just a group of people and just like in our countries, we should be able to make our voices heard democratically. I think we should aim to make more areas of our lives democratic, including our workplaces where we spend much of our lives.

So yeah, I think you should have a voice in how the company you work for is run.