>>Not to pull the marxist analysis card BUT: bullshit. They were being paid an agreed upon percentage of the value they provided to the company.

What is your point? Doesn't seem to contradict what I said.

>>In this case the owner decided to share the "surplus" value with those who generated it - which for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable.

You are assuming that they deserve that surplus, or really, the profits. They already got paid to generate that profit. That is the whole point of a business. What exactly is your point?

I'm not going to repeat myself. I already explained in all my comments the reason of why this makes me feel uncomfortable.

If you are advocating socialism or communism then lets just agree to disagree.

My point is that this notion of "static remuneration" while perfectly legal (and even moral when all parties consent - though the notion of consent when under duress is another issue all together) is not the only form of viable remuneration. I refuse to just accept the dichotomy of "communism" or "free market capitalism". This is hacker news, not the glenn beck comments page.

The simplification of "owner" v.s. "worker" in which either one or the other deserves the surplus entirely is false. Clearly there is labor and sacrifice involved with presenting the initial capital required to start the venture - but could this initial investment not have a half life? Why is it that once the owner has recovered their initial investment that they should then continue to retain the surplus generated by the worker? That is the real crux of the entire debate. Mathematically explain how that works out. How and why is the % of surplus a constant and not actually determined in real time based upon investment. Perhaps the opposite approach would be dynamic capitalism.

> "Why is it that once the owner has recovered their initial investment that they should then continue to retain the surplus generated by the worker?"

The capitalist's claim on the profit comes from the fact that the capitalist put his own capital at risk. It's pure risk premium: he (or she, of course) could've lost it all if things went south. The workers, from the start, had a guaranteed income in exchange for their irreplaceable moments of life on this planet. If the workers want a share of the profits, they are free to raise their own capital and buy shares in the company (or start their own!) just like the capitalist did.

Above all the mechanics of capitalism, however, people are also free to pursue their own self-actualization. For some people that involves helping their community, and for some capitalists that community happens to be the workers who helped create their thriving business. At a certain age, having extra capital to be buried with doesn't make one feel as good as philanthropy does.

So you genuinely feel that this initial risk has a value of infinity? How is that mathematically viable or honest?

How is it mathematically viable or honest to assume that a company will have infinite profits? There's an extremely high probability when you start a business that you will fail and lose everything.