It appears to assume that the company or factory concerned has always existed.
There must have been some point at which said company did not exist at first, then came into being.
The person or people who started that company were likely to have begun it by;
- performing any and all research required into starting the company
- acquiring the premises (or starting from home/garage)
- doing the work themselves
- at the same time, managing the company; running the finances, sales, gaining new customers/contacts etc.
If the company thrived, they then considered additional workforce. Perhaps they replaced themselves with these new employees to take on a more managerial position. So now you have a person or people who are concentrating on the managerial/sales/contacting/financing side. And now the company has additional employees.
The company has provided employment to more than just the person or people who initially started that company.
I do not agree that is "exploitative". Nor do I agree that the profits are going to the company owners "for free" - the owners are still performing work in the company. It's only the nature of that work (i.e. the tasks which need to be performed in order to keep that company going) that are different.
You missed the point. You're focusing on the management of the company, but I was talking about ownership.
I own shares of companies both directly and indirectly. Because of this ownership, I receive a (small) part of those companies' profits. I don't have to do anything to receive that profit -- I do get it for free.
(And yes, I'm a partial owner here because I didn't spend some money I earned in the past on other things instead. But why exactly should I be rewarded for that? It's far from obvious, and the usual rationalizations all have weaknesses. Keep in mind that many people who receive such profits didn't work for them at all: they inherited the ownership.)
It appears to assume that the company or factory concerned has always existed.
There must have been some point at which said company did not exist at first, then came into being.
The person or people who started that company were likely to have begun it by;
- performing any and all research required into starting the company
- acquiring the premises (or starting from home/garage)
- doing the work themselves
- at the same time, managing the company; running the finances, sales, gaining new customers/contacts etc.
If the company thrived, they then considered additional workforce. Perhaps they replaced themselves with these new employees to take on a more managerial position. So now you have a person or people who are concentrating on the managerial/sales/contacting/financing side. And now the company has additional employees.
The company has provided employment to more than just the person or people who initially started that company.
I do not agree that is "exploitative". Nor do I agree that the profits are going to the company owners "for free" - the owners are still performing work in the company. It's only the nature of that work (i.e. the tasks which need to be performed in order to keep that company going) that are different.