Say I work for a place that builds bicycles.
In the current system the business makes 500$ per bicycle sale. Myself and my four coworkers make 10$ per bicycle ordered and we do all the labor. The owner takes the other $450.
That's the current system, that's basically what most people's jobs are like, simplified.
What I see the anti-work people arguing is that myself and my coworkers should split the 500$ ourselves, and each collect 100$ a bike.
But one thing I don't see explained properly is who assumes the risk? Like for example, in the original system the owner gets $450 but they are responsible for buying the materials we need to build them. They are responsible for paying us even if the order goes unfulfilled. They are responsible for making sure as many bikes as possible get sold. There is little-to-no risk to us as the builders. Regardless of what happens we get our 10$ a piece, as long as the bike store is open. But if we were to split the full 500$ among ourselves and cut the boss out, who would assume all the risks of running the business? Who would pay for parts? Who would make sure we got paid, no matter whether the business succeeds or fails?
Certainly if the business is thriving its better to take the 100$ a sale rather than 10$ an order. But isn't it a safer bet for me to just keep my head down and collect my consistent 10$ an order? What happens when the business is not thriving?