Edit: You may not feel entitled to earn what you make, but others might just call that loser talk and no capitalist would ever say that.
Maybe centuries ago that was true. In the modern economy, workers are already extracting the full amount of value they generate[1]. Profit for a business comes from the additional value its capital is able to generate on top of the labour value.
[1] Within reason. The market is never perfectly efficient. Sometimes workers see slightly less – sometimes slightly more – but not anything hugely out of line.
Can you provide a concrete example of capital generating value without the involvement of any labor?
Not all the way there, but surprisingly close.
Let's face it: labor is soon to be obsolete. All economic models that include labor will become antique notions, similar to factoring in horsepower.
Gonna be a rough road: all folks in power can think of is, how to keep workers slaving away at something, anything, so long as they don't revolt.
People in the US have consumer items, pointless dictatorial jobs, and insane stress from having the welfare state stripped for parts by venture capitalists. We aren't even enjoying what we have even though materially, a good fraction of the population have more than so many others. If you lose your pointless job, you lose your home, healthcare, and transportation and are considered a surplus person.
These are all political choices.
If we fix some baseline combination of quantities of "labor" and "capital", and compare it to some later combination where both have been increased, there are a number of possible differences to take.
There are V(l_0, c_0) , V(l_0 + dl, c_0), V(l_0, c_0 + dc), V(l_0 + dl, c_0 + dc).
One could call V(l_0 + dl, c_0) - V(l_0, c_0) "the contribution from additional labor", and V(l_0, c_0 + dc) - V(l_0, c_0) "the contribution from additional capital", or one might call V(l_0 + dl, c_0 + dc) - V(L_0, c_0 + dc) "the contribution from additional labor" and V(l_0 + dl, c_0 + dc) - V(l_0 + dl, c_0) "the contribution from additional capital".
In a linear approximation, these two ways of assigning quantities to these names for quantities, could be the same. But I wouldn't really expect them to be the same in practice, at least for large values of dl and dc. (note: I am using "dl" and "dc" instead of \Delta l and \Delta c, because it is more convenient to type. I don't mean to suggest that the changes are extremely small or infinitesimal, as might be suggested by using the letter d instead of \Delta.)
As such, I think that "the additional value that an additional amount of capital is able to produce" is a meaningful value if "quantity of labor" is held constant, and that "the additional value that an additional amount of labor is about to produce" is a meaningful value if "amount of capital" is held constant.
When both values are changed, then how much to attribute the increase in value produced to, is I think inherently somewhat ambiguous, but also not a completely meaningless question.
Given the four values V(l_0, c_0) , V(l_0 + dl, c_0), V(l_0, c_0 + dc), V(l_0 + dl, c_0 + dc), assuming that all four of the differences I mentioned previously are non-negative, then clearly the additional value from either cannot reasonably be said to be more than V(l_0 + dl, c_0 + dc) - V(l_0, c_0). Nor, I think, can the value attributed to the change along one axis, be reasonably estimated as less than the minimum of the differences along that axis. Also, I think probably a more reasonable upper bound on either contribution, is the maximum of the two differences for the respective axis.
Now, maybe your goal is to talk about the deserts, rather than causes? But if we are talking about what things are causally responsible for how much of something is produced, I think it's pretty clear that this analysis in terms of differences of these 4 terms, is on the right track.
The core claim is that simply buying things and managing things produces value all on its own and it's transparently false as if the thing wasn't produced, you couldn't buy it.
The other core claim is that there's a legitimacy to the idea that if you buy something that is socially useful, you get to derive the exclusive right to the fruits of it which makes no sense.
Of course it does. Why would labour settle for anything less than every last cent (within some reasonable margin of error) of value that it produces? Labour is highly mobile and holds all the power. Labour is able to produce value even without capital. Capital, on the other hand, doesn't function without labour. You are simply not going to keep labour around to maintain capital operation if you don't give back all the labour value it produces.
In practice, we can also demonstrate that this is the case as even when unions roll into town – which really reenforces how much power labour wields – you never see the needle move more than small percentages that are within the margin of error. A $10 per hour job might be able to push for $11 per hour, but never does a $10 per hour job suddenly jump to a $100 per hour job.
Does that mean company is exploited by its workers if it generates no profit?
If you simply mean the company underpay its employees, how can you come to that conclusion? Looking at market values? Lines of code?
> it is objective reality.
Care to elaborate? business give people jobs, and therefore the business becomes an exploiter? Objectively
If the employer is paying you more than the value you would generate without being attached to them, then you're benefitting from that substantially. If your earning potential would be $1/hr on your own, but by joining ABC Corp you are leveraged and can earn them $3/hr and be paid $2/hr, then is that exploitation? To me that seems like a fair exchange that is mutually beneficial and grows the pie for everyone. And to be clear, ultimately the fact that you can earn more when attached to a business derives from the fact that you are able to wield and command some of the resources that the business is capitalized with, which you otherwise would not have access to.
The immediate objection will be that the surplus value is not typically fairly split between the employer and employee; maybe in some cases that's true? But from what I've seen, that's not as true as it may sound at first. The majority of people are able to earn essentially zero unless they are attached to a Real Job(tm), because most people at least in modern society have absolutely no idea how to optimally generate value on their own: there's a reason people get so upset when they're laid off or fired, it's far from trivial to figure out how to make your own money, it's much easier to just find another job. And the margin on labor costs are typically not >50% in most industries, which means that the actual divvying of surplus value is not really that abusive, it's a lot closer to the situation I mentioned in the first paragraph than most anti-capitalists would suggest.
I'm sure a lot of people would reject my framing altogether, and argue that it's only because we live in a capitalist society that it's so hard to get by without joining a company, or they'd argue that even if my logic holds workers deserve a lot more than an equal split of the surplus value, but I think this at least explains where a lot of us who do think capitalism works are coming from. It's not an unconsidered position, even if people disagree with the underlying moral framework.
One thing to keep in mind is that the US GDP is ~20T, if everyone made an equal amount before taxes, that would be somewhere around 120k (a little more or less as workers are about half the economy).
You can see from that comparison that the level of exploitation is far higher than than you supposed.