the owner doesn't really do more tho. labor is the source of wealth, if he is not laboring, he is not creating wealth. in your scenario about the baker businesses, you seem to be confused that im saying differences in pay are the cause of exploitation but thats not what im saying.
lets say you work there as an employee
over the course of the day you make 100$ worth of goods. a fair wage is 100$. your boss, because you said he contributes the exact same as the worker, would also get 100$. but you said he also has logistical measures. so lets say the labor he puts into those is worth 100 as well. so your boss makes 200 a day. no one is exploited, people were paid fairly for their labor.
the issue is, your boss needs to make a profit. therefore, he cannot pay you 100$. lets say your wage is 100$ still. but now lets say you make 100$ worth of goods in 2 hours. for the rest of your workday, you are working for free. your boss is is extracting surplus value from you so that they can make a profit. the wage is not fair. this is the source of the exploitative relationship, not a mere difference in pay.
But then isn't the owner of the bakery being exploited and unfairly compensated for doing work for the business beyond that of his employees and not getting any additional money or benefits from it?
I follow what you're saying and it kind of bleeds into the second point I made in the previous post. that without the infrastructure that the boss creates the employee would have no opportunity to earn any wage and therefore must hold a value that gets subtracted from the wage. Just because it's not an equal split it doesn't make it unfair due to the fact there are other things that need be addressed and paid for.
can you give an example of a business model where everyone makes a fair wage? because I'm playing this out in my head and in every sort of scenario I'm imaging there is always someone who does something more than the rest and therefore should receive some higher level of compensation.
Read a book just one time please
good 1
didnt even know u could lease phones
Anything is possible these days bro
didnt even know u could lease phones
What you think a phone contract is lol
Can’t even get to a DMV agent man f*** this
You can't see over the counter short stack
did synopsis really give that dude 100 bucks? theres no way
what's the story here
What you think a phone contract is lol
a way for companies to lock you in to service? ive never had a phone contract that didn't end up with me owning the phone
there is. there is something wrong with any exploitative relationship. you just fail to see how being a landlord is exploitative, because you need to justify it
Like i said, if the system changes, I will.
didnt even know u could lease phones
The most common way people who have high end phones get them
a way for companies to lock you in to service? ive never had a phone contract that didn't end up with me owning the phone
So you are leasing it lol
a way for companies to lock you in to service? ive never had a phone contract that didn't end up with me owning the phone
You’re basically financing the phone not leasing it
So you are leasing it lol
leases usually mean you have to give the product back after ur done tho
So you are leasing it lol
Lease usually means you don’t own the product after the contract is up like cars mainly.
its pedantry i guess
Dudes on this site will lease their 3rd phone in a row and be like "haha synop is so broke why dont we just make everything free then. Just invest and you can easily make money"
Niggas itt livin like this makin job jokes round the clock

My Google Fi™ plan is very fair actually! love doing business with them!
leases usually mean you have to give the product back after ur done tho
Well to lease is to just be allowed to use something whether you end up owning it or not, but like you said it very much is pedantic