He doesn’t contribute to your car. Your employees contribute to your company. “That man who is walking” makes no contribution to your life. Your employees do.
I see what you’re saying, but the point I’m trying to make is that neither of them own the company or the car, so why should they receive that sort of benefit? If I pick trash up from the side of the road, should that land become mine? If I’m a handyman and I’ve been paid to work on someone’s fence, do I deserve a share of that fence? No.
Neither of them own the original thing. Just because you contribute to something, doesn’t mean you deserve part of it. Contribution was optional in the first place, and in the case of the employee, they are paid.
Instead of posing ridiculous arguments like trying to distribute companies among “the workers”, most of which probably don’t even care in the first place, why not just fight for a better minimum wage so its a non-issue?
See my response to the other comments. I what I’m getting at is that the premise of the original comment was ridiculous and nobody will ever get on board with it, much less politicians. Instead of offering ridiculous, impossible solutions that make us look like idiots, why don’t we just go for something reasonable like a better minimum wage? Then people will be prosperous enough to start their own companies, if they desire. Not everyone wants to own their own company or share the responsibility of such a thing.
Okay, but if that was your point, you should use an analogy that drives your point home. What you’re saying now is nothing like your original comment lol.
Not true. The original poster was suggesting that someone just randomly give away something to somebody else. Analogies are always imperfect, and I’m surprised that I have to explain that to you.
This is the same as owning a car, and then someone walks up to you on the street and says “consider giving your car to that man who is walking”.
That was really stupid.
He doesn’t contribute to your car. Your employees contribute to your company. “That man who is walking” makes no contribution to your life. Your employees do.
I see what you’re saying, but the point I’m trying to make is that neither of them own the company or the car, so why should they receive that sort of benefit? If I pick trash up from the side of the road, should that land become mine? If I’m a handyman and I’ve been paid to work on someone’s fence, do I deserve a share of that fence? No.
What? Whatever else it is, it is nothing like your car example
Neither of them own the original thing. Just because you contribute to something, doesn’t mean you deserve part of it. Contribution was optional in the first place, and in the case of the employee, they are paid.
Instead of posing ridiculous arguments like trying to distribute companies among “the workers”, most of which probably don’t even care in the first place, why not just fight for a better minimum wage so its a non-issue?
This isn’t a good analogy. The man who is walking is not directly contributing to the car or having anything to do with the car.
See my response to the other comments. I what I’m getting at is that the premise of the original comment was ridiculous and nobody will ever get on board with it, much less politicians. Instead of offering ridiculous, impossible solutions that make us look like idiots, why don’t we just go for something reasonable like a better minimum wage? Then people will be prosperous enough to start their own companies, if they desire. Not everyone wants to own their own company or share the responsibility of such a thing.
Okay, but if that was your point, you should use an analogy that drives your point home. What you’re saying now is nothing like your original comment lol.
Not true. The original poster was suggesting that someone just randomly give away something to somebody else. Analogies are always imperfect, and I’m surprised that I have to explain that to you.