Two things:

> - He owns 100% of the future value of the company despite being created only 10% by him. Well, not exactly, he was creating 100% for the first year and 10% from then on.

1) If you believe this, then you have a massively simplistic view of employee value. The distribution of actual value provided by employees is probably log normal, and certainly not normal (gaussian).

2) This is basically the labor theory of value. That is an economic theory that was discarded as wrong about 150 years ago. If it was true, the value of a newly discovered gold mine would be 0.

> you have a massively simplistic view of employee value

That's why I talk about skill levels later, but briefly because this is a comment, not a book.

There's also a difference between how much value is provided can be attributed to a particular person vs a particular position. Some positions allow a much wider range of possible outcomes. How much extra wealth does a 90th percentile carpenter produce over and average carpenter? What about programmer, fashion designer, manager, salesman, doctor?

Does this mean the value of life of different people is based on how productive they are?

Because each person has roughly the same amount of time available to them and if they are spending an equal amount of it building a company, does one deserve to own more of it? Should this distribution be the same or different from the (monthly) monetary compensation?

These are rhetorical questions (mostly) but they are questions society should be discussing IMO.

Tangent: a carpenter who has no salesman and is so shit at selling his furniture that he gives it away for free is still producing value for society, even if he goes broke doing it. OTOH a salesman who has no carpenter and is so shit at making furniture that nobody wants it even for free is not producing any value at all.

> This is basically the labor theory of value

Ok, I need to read up on LVT. Seems like I am finally getting somewhere because I can't believe I am the only one saying things like this but at the same time I have not found anybody else with similar opinions. At best, I've seen people try to pattern match my opinions onto something similar they were familiar with but actually different.

> If it was true, the value of a newly discovered gold mine would be 0.

I don't know how this results from LVT yet but it seems what I am proposing must then be fundamentally different depending on how you meant it:

a) You meant gold as a natural resource with inherent value. It is necessary for making e.g. some electronics. The only question remains how to distribute the reward for discovering and mining it.

b) You meant gold as a substitute for money, ignoring its value as a natural resource. In that case, yes, money is a medium of exchange, you can't eat it or make anything out of it (maybe a fire?). Having more money in circulation does not bring any extra value for society, it just multiplies all monetary values by a number slightly larger than 1. (OTOH for the person discovering and mining it, it would be beneficial but only because he now has more relative to others. The same way as if he printed more money.)