A customer pays the full value of the purchase, the plumber is the one in charge and charges as much as possible.
Except here we’re talking about ownership/shares, not payment for labour. Many in this thread are outraged that not every employee of Broadcast owned shares, and the implication is that as soon as you work for someone, you should receive a share. My plumber example still stands. Should he get a “share” of my house, even though I already paid him for his labour, as Cuban paid his employees?
An employer never pays the full value, though! The employer, as the one in charge, pays as little as possible.
Again,we’re talking about shares, not labour. For all you know Cuban was drawing zero salary from the company. The two are completely different. You’re all so doctrinaire that you can’t mentally distinguish labour versus ownership of a thing.
Your plumber doesn’t own a share of your toilet because you actually paid them what they are worth, because they can demand it from you. They have all the power in that relationship.
No employee is ever paid what they are worth. They can’t be, if they were then the company could never make a profit. That’s literally where profit comes from - it’s all surplus value created by the workers. Hence, they should get a share of the company.
So the company never operated at a profit - it was profitable in the end, was it not? And who created all of that profit? Who sacrificed for the company and were never paid what they were worth to make it good enough to sell in the first place?
The plumber was already paid the full value he was worth because the power dynamics are entirely different.
A company that can’t turn a profit isn’t doing so because it’s paying the workers the full value of their labor. That’s absurd. Is that what you think happened? Do you think the workers were being paid such extravagant wages that the company couldn’t profit?
Obviously not. Why do you think the company became valueable enough to buy in the first place? It took the stolen surplus value created by the workers and reinvested into itself over-and-over, becoming a valuable company even if it couldn’t turn a profit. No one would buy a company because it’s worthless. They do it because it’s valuable, and all the value comes from the workers.
You should familiarise yourself with the details of this particular transaction, because your idealised description bears very little resemblance to what actually happened. There’s a reason this is known as one of the worst business deals of all time.
Except here we’re talking about ownership/shares, not payment for labour. Many in this thread are outraged that not every employee of Broadcast owned shares, and the implication is that as soon as you work for someone, you should receive a share. My plumber example still stands. Should he get a “share” of my house, even though I already paid him for his labour, as Cuban paid his employees?
Again,we’re talking about shares, not labour. For all you know Cuban was drawing zero salary from the company. The two are completely different. You’re all so doctrinaire that you can’t mentally distinguish labour versus ownership of a thing.
Your plumber doesn’t own a share of your toilet because you actually paid them what they are worth, because they can demand it from you. They have all the power in that relationship.
No employee is ever paid what they are worth. They can’t be, if they were then the company could never make a profit. That’s literally where profit comes from - it’s all surplus value created by the workers. Hence, they should get a share of the company.
Funny you mention that! Broadcast.com was in fact not profitable. It lost millions the year it was sold to Yahoo.
And who got the profit from that sale?
So the company never operated at a profit - it was profitable in the end, was it not? And who created all of that profit? Who sacrificed for the company and were never paid what they were worth to make it good enough to sell in the first place?
So if I sell my house at a loss because I’m inept, the plumber should get an even bigger share of the sale money?
The plumber was already paid the full value he was worth because the power dynamics are entirely different.
A company that can’t turn a profit isn’t doing so because it’s paying the workers the full value of their labor. That’s absurd. Is that what you think happened? Do you think the workers were being paid such extravagant wages that the company couldn’t profit?
Obviously not. Why do you think the company became valueable enough to buy in the first place? It took the stolen surplus value created by the workers and reinvested into itself over-and-over, becoming a valuable company even if it couldn’t turn a profit. No one would buy a company because it’s worthless. They do it because it’s valuable, and all the value comes from the workers.
You should familiarise yourself with the details of this particular transaction, because your idealised description bears very little resemblance to what actually happened. There’s a reason this is known as one of the worst business deals of all time.
Okay, so he was an inept dipshit?
Sounds like he didn’t deserve any of the money, actually.
In fact, the company clearly would have been better off if he wasn’t involved at all and it was a worker co-op instead.
lol alright I’m done, you’re clearly too busy fighting strawmen because your arguments don’t make any sense regarding the topic at hand.