"I indeed wish to make a profit, but that is a return on the time and capital that I have invested in my business."

So when I go to graduate school and I learn all sorts of different things that make your business excel, I am entitled to a good salary. I am, however, not entitled to some of the profits. That is for the CEO and shareholders, etc After all, they invested the time and the capital.

I, of course, didn't invest any time in spending 7 years at university to acquire those skills your company cannot do without. Nor is that counted as an investment.

With respect, Edward, you're respeating an idea I first heard at school in South Africa in 1958. It is way past time it was put to bed.

Your risk is no greater than anyone going to school and learning a skill, only to find out $100,000 later that the skill has become outmoded in 10 years. There is a great deal of risk in that. And a lot of money was also invested. Your riks as a business owner is no greater than anyone else's risk.

When someone goes to work for a business and signs a restraint of trade so that the skills learnt in that business cannot be transferrred to another business, the employee loses out on all the time spent learning. That person now has to start at the beginning. That is a loss, and it was a risk.

As a more highly skilled person in the business, you're certainly entitled to earn a higher monthly salary. But there is no ethical or moral reason for business to pay lower wages to staff and charger higher prices for products so that they can 'earn a profit.'

This is what causes increasing poverty and growing inquality. The more profit business owners and shareholders make, the faster the majority of people sink into poverty, and the greater the gap between the rich and the poor grows.

The justification that owners are entitled to a profit because they take a risk evolved during the British Empire as the aristocracy grew short of funds, and they had to go more and more into trade. In order to take the lion's share of the money coming in, they explained to all the people who worked to make and distribute the goods that because they 'invested their money,' and workers did not invest their money, the owner was entitled to profit. After all, it was the owner who took the loss, while the workers ontinued to get their weekly pay.

If that was ever true, it is most certainly not true anymore. It is a fairytale created to justify paying employees very little sot hat the lords of the universe could still have massive funds accorded to them.

It's well past sell-by date for that story to vanish.