Earlier quoted context omitted.
This literally makes no sense, and it wrong even by your own math. Person A is now at -100k: Agreed Person B is now at 100k: Agreed Person A is now at +1 years: If you are valuing 1 year at 100k, then no - they are at zero years. They put in $100K over 1 year, so the two cancel each other out. Person B is now at -1 years: Again, they have been paid at the rate of $100K for 1 year, so they are at zero years. Again - I…
Let's say you have 1 year left to live. You have two things you want to do, X and Y, but X and Y take 1 year each to complete . It is the end result you want, but each result takes 1 year achieve, and you only have 1 year left to live. What can you do? Well, if you have enough money, you can pay for someone else to work on X while you work on Y. In this way, you have been able to get 2 years worth of work done, in on…
But the employee keeps the money.
The entirety of my reasoning in predicated on one simple thing: an investor trades in their money for something of equal value, and the worker trades in their time for something of equal value.
Indeed. The investor buys part of the company, and the worker gets paid for their time.
If you buy shares in Microsoft you get a proportion of the company, not some weird "time" thing.