Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (10624)	2/2/2006 4:14:17 PM
From: TigerPaw	Respond to of 541961

I don't see why they would be entitled to a chunk of the business under other circumstances? I don't think the value of a business is only what Marx had called "excess labor". But I do think that it is a valid component of the business. Furthermore only if the labor is valued will the fortunes of the business rise accordingly, so while a great deal of effort can be expended making mud pies instead of cherry pies, the mud pie would be a much worse return to the laborer and capitalist alike. It is only when labor is considered strictly transitory and capital strictly permanant that the mud pie analogy is apt. workers might be entitled to shares in a business as a part of their contract, This proposal is not just about giving stock to employees. It is just as important that the stock (or any asset for that matter) have a time-value as well as a capital value. This prevents dislocations of wealth through mere passive ownership. It also places the incentive for success near the people who are most affected by the success or failure of the endevour. TP