It's not nitpicking to ask you if you hired someone to help you start the business. You used that person to help you get your position. You exploited them. You had access to capital they did not. They depended on you for a wage so they can have a roof over their head and belly full of bread. Where's the choice? They can only chose to be exploited by someone else.
Also, seriously… where's your profit bro?
Since the start of his venture, bob has gained capital. If he didn't get repaid the full amount of his labour plus, he wouldn't have the capital required to hire kate or even buy more materials in order to create another bike and turn a bigger profit.
For reals go to >>>/marx/ they might actually put an effort into answering your brainlet tier question.
He also doesn't realize that in order for someone like Bill Gates to accomplish what he did, he had to use a computer, who was invented by someone else. Why doesn't the person who invented computers get Microsoft?
I'm not OP, and I'm not interested in defending, his flawed pretend mathematics.
>I build this infrastructure, using materials that I either earned (inb4: "bud dey dind't earn id"), or inherited.
How about you imagine bofa
fuck it create a coop
it always works
You completely misunderstand what exploitation is. Hint: it's non-moral in nature. It's not a matter of who deserves what, but rather the extraction of surplus value through structurally unequal exchange between employer and employed. Capitalism literally couldn't function without it.
To elaborate slightly: by unequal I mean that one side has greater bargaining power than the other.
Sage for double post.
If commodities or services sell on a market, and the competition on the market makes it so that every price is pushed down to cost, how does anyone make any profit under capitalism?