It wasn’t even the case in the 50s. Giving workers what they are responsible for producing would require changing the structure of property relations. An employer cannot do it without abolishing their own role
Well, it was closer I guess? I mean, compared to the income disparity we are today.
Of course whenever there is anyone who makes money simply by owning a company, I’d agree they aren’t really worth anything except maybe the effort to found said company (which isn’t really the case with investors, share holders, corporations, etc). There is some value in taking the initiative and risk, just not like… hundreds times more than the employee.
Workers should be able to realize the value of what they produce in basically getting the pure profits of the firm.
Value doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Property rights to positive and negative fruits of labor do. When you consider what taking on the risk and initiative means in this context, it is really taking on the negative fruits of labor (liabilities for used-up inputs). Workers should get both the positive and negative fruits of their labor, and take the initiative
