> the first is they assume employees are (or should be) paid according to how much they earned the company

From the perspective of a employee and/or human, that does seem like the most fair way of distributing what the company earns, sans the money that gets reinvested straight back into the business itself. But I'd guess that'd be more of a co-operative, and less like the typical for-profit company most companies are today.

There is no way to unambiguosly decide who is responsible for which earnings.

Hipothetical two people cooperative that produces simple hammers. One specializes on wooden part, the other on metal part. How much each of them earned to the company? (Or producing and selling; or one spending his lifesavings to buy pricey hammer-making-equipment while other presses buttons on said equipment)

Hopefully you don’t get assigned to fixing bugs, because then you may not earn any money.

If an employee wants to get paid according marginal company earnings, they should not be an employee. They should be self employed.

Would you pay a farmer or doctor how much value they give to you? You die without their service.

The problem with calculating based on value provided not market rate is value provided easily sums to more than one unless you consider replacement cost.

Even with sales based around commission, the most objective sort of salary determination, businesses still find ways to undercut payouts if they don’t think it’ll hurt the bottom line or employers won’t notice

Did you even finish reading the comment you're replying to? It explicitly explains why employees who do not generate revenue are still valuable.

What you're describing, that money would go to whoever brings in revenue directly, is the myopic viewpoint of Sales with an emphasis on closing deals with nothing else. If it wasn't for the rest of the work, there'd be nothing to sell!