[xyzzyz]

Dividing profits by employee count and calling this "fair share" is ludicrous. It exhibits a childish understanding of the world and the economy. If you believe that you're cheated, and you are creating significantly more value than you're paid, start your own single-person company and sell your services to others.

The truth is that by working for a company, you get access to environment that makes you much more productive than you'd otherwise be on your own. You also are not on the hook for most of the risks. It is patently unfair, and extremely short-sighted, to claim that investors deserve no compensation for their investment.

[newsomix9xl]

Implying people are cheated is a nice way to increase dissatisfaction, if the goal is to produce resentment.

I'm all for unions and collective bargaining but I'm not a fan of manipulated dissatisfaction.

Access to many of the companies I worked for allowed me to support their monopolies just like desktop bundling (MS), pay store fees(AAPL), search advertising (GOOG), and so on. I guess you could call that "more productive"?

[xyzzyz]

It's probably easier to understand this concept if you forget about tech, and think about something like steel mill, or a mine. If you want to make money as a worker making steel, if you just start doing it in your backyard by yourself, you'll produce very little steel in an hour of your labor. If, instead, you obtain access to enormous, capital-intensive machinery, by joining a pre-established company that owns a blast furnace, and has pre-existing business relationships with ore and fuel suppliers, the hour of your labor will be made much more productive. You will be producing a lot of value by working in a steel mill, but only because the pre-existing capital investment, and process organization will enable you to do so. Therefore, the business will contribute to your productivity in an enormous way, making the idea that the profits are entirely your own contribution just silly.

The same is, of course, true about Google or Apple. Working at Apple will make it much easier for you to be productive than working at your own company. The nice thing about our industry is that the latter, while more difficult, is actually possible -- unlike steel mill workers, software engineers don't need as much capital investment, and can run highly successful companies that employ just one or a handful of people. It's just hard and risky to try that, hence people prefer to pretend that the productivity enabled by working as part of established, successful company is entirely due to their own merit.

[andrewaylett]

On the other side: without the workers, those large capital investments are useless lumps of metal.

Both Capital and Labour invest in the company, in different ways. It's not at all clear to me that the optimal arrangement is that Capital reaps the bulk of the return from those investments.

[xyzzyz]

This is literally opposite of the truth. In almost all businesses, the wages constitutes higher share of revenues than profits.

[andrewaylett]

The value of a business isn't its wages or its immediate profits: it (over-simplified) represents a claim on the future profits.

Equity grants (and especially options) aren't particularly controversial in tech, and I'm not saying they're the answer to the problem at hand. But they're a mechanism for allowing workers to share in the gain from their investment. All the problems (especially with US tax treatment of options) notwithstanding.

[newsomix9xl]

OK so you avoid my answer and resort to "teaching me the concept" as if disagreement means misunderstanding.

The concept here is that you are cherry picking non-average companies.

And you are straw manning alternatives.

So, I disagree.

[IESAI_ski]

I agree, if you think you're being cheated you should thinkg about starting your own company. Startups are much better on this. I definitely disagree with the idea that workers don't take on the risks. Workers get fired, relocated, their compensation gets changed, etc etc.

[tbrownaw]

> I definitely disagree with the idea that workers don't take on the risks.

When $employer beats or misses targets, that affects my bonus (which is formalized for only the higher pay bands, probably on the theory that we can actually have some individual impact somehow) but not my base salary which is actually the vast majority of what I'm paid.

Risk isn't zero, but it's far less than what the equity holders see.

[alexgieg]

Which risks?

Mega corps have access to guaranteed bailout by governments as they're considered National Security concern, plus massive lobbying departments to buy all the laws they need to favor themselves over most potential competitors both external and internal, plus massive legal departments with experts at twisting the laws they didn't manage to buy yet into meaning whatever they want them to mean.

And after all that socialism-for-the-rich, any remaining risk is transferred directly to their employees in the form of lay offs, coupled with non-compete clauses that forbid the most competent, for months to years, from working at their core area of expertize, plus arbitration clauses that forbid them from seeking relief at the actual courts. Clauses that are enforced by the courts due to the aforementioned lobbying and purchased laws.