The additional .3x is the corporate "profit" and is distributed in any number of ways depending on how the company is set up. Its still a rational decision for all of the employees to work there.
The additional .3x is the corporate "profit" and is distributed in any number of ways depending on how the company is set up. Its still a rational decision for all of the employees to work there.
Without emergent properties (your work + my work < our work), it really is a zero sum game. To me, you may be able to manipulate perception of value in this fashion but that's where it ends (which to be fair, is often enough).
The apple farmer sells apples because (he considers) the money is worth more than the apples. Consumers buy apples because (they consider) the apples are worth more than the money.
My perceived benefit - my compensation to you > 0 (I win = consumer surplus)
My compensation to you - your perceived cost > 0 (You win = producer surplus)
If either one of those is not true, no voluntary exchange takes place. In compelled exchange, only the first needs to be true. This takes various forms, including taxation, robbery, and slavery.Note that those two equations are from two individual perspectives - I determine my benefit, you determine your cost. If you simplify to "benefit > your cost" and compel the exchange, you get a dystopia - compulsion "for the benefit of all/others/king/etc.", without realizing the full costs to those compelled to sacrifice. Voluntary exchange is required to allow each individual to determine their own benefits and costs.
Note also that this incorporates transaction costs inside the "benefit" or "cost". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem for more info.