[try_the_bass]

I dunno, he's asking a really basic question that should be trivial to answer. When I see a basic, level-setting question like this go unanswered, it starts to seem like the side refusing to answer is the one acting in bad faith, not the side asking the question

[banannaise]

The answer is 100%. This brings us to the start point of the real conversation this person is trying to have, which likely centers on the nature of employment, the importance of Job Creators, and/or the infallibility of markets.

[try_the_bass]

> The answer is 100%.

But that's not a valid answer? It seems like you're sidestepping the question by moving the goalposts and redefining terms.

The reality is that there will always be a gap between "what a company is willing to pay you for your work" and "what your contribution to the whole earns the company", and that's... fine? The whole is often greater than the parts, and this difference contributes to that gap. The gap also needs to provide for the commons of the company: workspaces, licenses, equipment, interest/loan repayments, etc.

This mostly just a fleshing out of the `X` and `Y` quantities mentioned by the ancestor. If you don't think the whole is worth that much more than the parts, then presumably you should seek employment at a company that offers you a larger absolute `X`, a larger relative `X / Y`, or (ideally) both. If no such company exists, you could attempt to start one of your own? That would be the ultimate vote of confidence that such a thing is even possible, right?

I suspect the reason why such companies do not exist is because that's actually much harder to accomplish than you're making it out to be.

[paulcole]

Yes, that is the real conversation.

100% seems delusional to me because you're saying that the company deserves no profit for doing the work of providing you customers to provide value for?

It also seems to ignore the fact that some of the value you're creating is used to pay for the work that enables your value creation. Think about payroll processing, benefits administration, hiring, etc. etc. Those roles provide value as well but don't directly bring in money.

Isn't that part of the tradeoff of working for a company that they take a "fee" for giving you dependable work? You can approach 100% value-capture by working for yourself but there are downsides there as well.

[banannaise]

I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created. How you split up the credit is a difficult problem. (As many developers will note, there is no such thing as a 'cost center'; all labor contributes to the outcome.)

However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.

[paulcole]

You’ve just found a roundabout way to repeat the idea that you don’t like that someone else is getting what you believe to be an unfairly large piece of the pie.

Because currently in the world today, the owner of the business is earning 100% of the value they provide as is the developer as is the bookkeeper.

You just don’t agree with each person’s view of the value they create and don’t have a way to determine the actual value they create.

So we’re back where we started.

> However, a bigger problem in the current state is the existence of parties whose only real role is funding, but who receive an outsized portion of the reward.

Isn’t the funder getting earning 100% of the value they create (just like you want them to) by providing capital? If not, how do you prove otherwise?

[try_the_bass]

> I assumed that each of these entities would also earn 100% of their contribution to the value created.

So... you're describing the current system?

This is so loosely defined as to describe any system, really.