I see this fallacy all the time.

Can a 40 year old man have sex with a 12 year old girl if she agrees? What if she's 18? The first is illegal and wrong. The second is legal but most people will tell you it's at least gross. Why? Because of the power differential.

Starting a company takes investment (obviously money but also time spent on administrative tasks, hiring, marketing, etc.). Rich people can just buy companies and get passive income.

Salary negotiations are also unequal - one side has much more information and almost always more time and monetary reserves.[1]

I am tired so i'll cut it short - there's inherent power imbalance in the employer-employee[2] relationship which makes the outcome inherently and unavoidably exploitative.

[0]: They'll often use the word illegal because they have been taught to follow rules but have not been taught about differentiating legality and morality.

[1]: Why do you think you come to the company to the interview instead of them asking to meet you at a restaurant like normal business deals might be discussed? It's so ingrained this is normal that what I said sounds absurd.

[2]: Have you ever thought what those words actually mean? Employees are literally being used, it's right in the name.

▲

auggierose 5 days ago | parent [-]

There is no fallacy here. Just answer me this, instead of going on a rant tangent: Who does the cleaning? And what do they get for it?

▲

martin-t 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

They get ownership. The rest is determined from that, since owners collectively decide how much everyone gets paid.

(There might need to be further legal restrictions like minimum wage or tying wage to the skill coefficient used to determine rate of gaining ownership - see my other comments.)

▲

auggierose 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

See my other comment. As long as the cleaner cannot fire the CEO, but only the other way around, ownership doesn't mean anything. If you own 0.00001 percent of a company, that gives you about as much power as your vote in a democracy. Probably less so.

▲

martin-t 5 days ago | parent [-]

Why should the collective owners even have a CEO and why should he have the power to fire people? The only way would be if they collectively decided that. There are other ways to structure the company.

> 0.00001

That's a lot of zeros, must be a huge company and/or a very low skill short-time worker. And a small country if one vote is worth more than that.

	▲	auggierose 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, I like my cleaner example. It will be a lot of zeros. Yes, let's end this discussion, I think your views are quite naive and not well thought out.

▲

5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

mauzybwy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem here bc you’re applying asking how to apply cooperative organization theory to a capitalist organization. Presumably in a largely cooperative economy, the cleaner would be a worker-owner of a cleaning organization that provides cleaning labor to the manufacturing organization in question.