Non exhausting labour
The funny thing about workers is that they pay their own bills AND the bills of the employer (assuming a company is cash flow positive), whereas the employer only puts up an initial set of funding, which gets expired, and they rely on workers for income, so why do capital owners get paid again and again for the same funding but workers don't?
The unfairness of capital. I propose labour is treated the same way as capital, as in it is non-exhausting. Whereas a capital owner is owed the capital they put in and all its growth, a labour is only entitled a single fee. This is morally and ethically wrong.
+[項目]
是的，我注意到“補償”一詞意味着支付成本，這是有問題的，因此創建了[此股權模型]（https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLdPmZAYiXM
Yes, I noticed that the term "compensation" meaning pay for cost, is problematic, and therefore, created this equity model to remedy the situation. In essence, if an employer only pays for the cost of making, they paid for your loss, and took your gain, whereas in reality, both of you added equal amount of resources -- one added those resources in terms of labor costs, another (employer) in terms of monetary costs, and got a result, which, if the payment from employer only covered the cost, then, the result should be shared in equal parts between the employer and the employed, and based on this rule, if put in legal practice, we could have a fair distribution of wealth. However, the described equity model actually solves the problem in accounting sense...
Can you explain exactly, how this would "labor as capital" be treated? According to my formula, the labor would automatically become co-ownership of shares generated by work results, and this is what I'm thinking of, when it comes to fully-fledged investment model on the Infinity family.
好吧，我對“筋疲力盡”一詞的使用適用於工作補償的性質。當工人的工作得到報酬時，交易就結束了。這項工作對工人的效用已經耗盡，但對資本所有者卻沒有。
資本則相反，它的效用永遠不會耗盡。即使你得到了資本的回報，你也會得到更多的回報。
隨着時間的推移，工人貢獻的工作比資本一開始的貢獻多。這是一種由工人維持的連鎖反應。
如果工人的投入和事業被重視並被視爲資本，他們將隨着時間的推移獲得公平。
所有權應該基於誰在做這項工作。
或者股權應該到期。
Well my use of the word "exhausting" applies to the nature of work compensation. When the worker is paid for their work, the transaction is over. The work is exhausted in its utility for the worker but not for the capital owner.
Capital is the opposite, it never exhausts in its utility. Even if you are paid back for the capital, you get more of it back.
A worker contributes more work over time than capital did at the beginning. It's kind of a chain reaction that is maintained by workers.
If workers input and causes was valued and treated as capital, they would gain equity over time.
Ownership should be based on who is doing the work.
Or equity should expire.
你可以擁有兩種股權，每個月根據誰再投資什麼來稀釋。
來自資本的權益和來自增值的權益。
發行的股權每個月都會被稀釋，但未提供的股權（即人們所持有的股權）已過期。
這個想法是管理層和工人隨着時間的推移獲得最多的股權，隨着時間的推移他們成爲事實上的所有者。
原始資本得到他們投入的東西
You could have two kinds of equity and dilute every month based on who reinvests what.
Equity from capital and equity from value added.
The equity in issue is diluted every month but equity that wasn't served (i.e equity people are sitting on) is expired.
The idea is that management and workers gain the most equity over time and they become the de facto owners over time.
The original capital gets what they put in