Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

But every single employee that chooses to work for a company is taking those exact same risks. They could work at a safe job, or a risky start up that might make it big, or might go bankrupt. And yes they could start their own business.

My argument is that the risks are the same in kind, but different in magnitude. They are proportional to the uncompensated investment made by each person that contributes to a company. And therefore they should be treated in the same way, proportionally to their magnitude.

They might or they might take on a lower wage, since they believe in the company. But here's the key thing, the owner might forgo their wage in the form of a loan to the company which they can expect to be paid out when it's profitable.

But why should they be compensated more for that loaned wage, than an employee that takes a pay cut. Or goes without their pay for a month while waiting for the big deal to come through. Why are these two things treated any differently?