This is a more scholarly definition contra the 1/2024th Indian Elizabeth Warren, who still holds that since “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT,” everyone else is entitled to the fruits of your labor including if all you do is sit on your ample posterior and whine.
And why suppose that profit is inversely correlated with social values? The supposition is fundamental to the statist left: profit is seen as a sin, a pointless and indeed evil extraction by the bosses, when the whole average product of labor should go to labor alone. But no, it should not, not if the economic pie is to be as large as possible, giving the poor their 3,000 percent improvement. The owners of the company are last in line for payment, as most economist have understood, at the latest in 1921 from Frank Knight’s Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit. The wages, material costs, costs of routine management, and the cost of insurance against calculable risk are all pre-contracted, bought from the outside of the enterprise at their going prices. The stockholder-owners therefore bear the uncertainty of any enterprise, the very uncertainly that [Mariana] Mazzucato in her 2013 book claimed only the State could properly assume. (We do so wish, not for the first or last time, that a professor of economics exhibited an acquaintance with the elements of economics.)
-Deirdre McCloskey and Alberto Mingardi (The Myth of the Entrepreneurial State)
Being an entrepreneur means that all of the risk of trying to start a new business is on you. When Society, due to Socialist pressure, decides that it will “ask” of an inordinate amount of said business simply because it can DEMAND by legislative fiat, WHY would anyone bother to try?
As soon as anyone says they should have “stakeholder” ownership, tell them “Up Yours” and then get your business out of their “Dodge” or they WILL take it away from you.