Only an owner would feel that way. Without significant equity, what's the point?
The worker gets nothing except less life and more stress. The owner sucks up all the benefit.
The worker gets nothing except less life and more stress. The owner sucks up all the benefit.
The worker thinks 'without my work, the owner would have nothing!'
The owner thinks 'without my business, the worker would have nothing.'
The truth is, both are right, to different degrees depending on the circumstances. A good owner should make workers feel they have a stake, whether by salary or ownership. A good worker should make the owner believe they are making a good decision by paying them.
I have no answer to the debate in the title, I just find this little sub-argument fascinating.
Money is a powerful drug and society needs to tame the habit. Otherwise, you will end up with conditions equal to slavery for the workers and royalty for the capital owners.
All this will lead to is revolutions and bloodshed.
Its ok to sacrifice rapid growth, in cycles, to steady but slower growth that has none.