You are mistaken, the analysis derives out of one of the core elements of firm theory. It doesn't assume a zero-sum situation at all.
There's a lot of literature on 'the analysis', which happens to not be mine. It's actually one of the core elements of neoclassical economics.
>one could just as easily argue that labor is exploiting capital
No, one couldn't.
>In a chapter 11 bankruptcy, capital is lost while wages remain protected.
Depending on the jurisdiction, wages are provided a super-priority status. Other super-priority stakeholders are afforded equal protection amongst themselves. Priority stakeholders, such as lenders with security, are provided more protection than unsecured lenders, etc. Protection for missing wages exists solely due to rectifying legislation attempting to address of how disadvantaged a worker is when a business's assets are encumbered and they have no priority.
However, when it comes to managing risk, workers have to hope they'll get paid, while a secured lender can request assurances that potential super-priority stakeholders have been paid to determine the amount of exposure they're willing to entertain, and call their loans due in the event covenants and other monitoring systems indicate financial duress. Workers have no equivalent protective system.
Honestly most of these points feel like they're relatively uninformed and don't hold up to much scrutiny.
>> In a chapter 11 bankruptcy, capital is lost while wages remain protected.
> Depending on the jurisdiction,
Cutting through the unnecessary explanation, it appears you agree with me. In general, sometimes capital operates a wage paying business without providing a return to investors.
This point is observably true (otherwise a market wouldn't have losers) and I don't think you need to respond to it further.
I don't agree with you at all, for the reasons I've set out.
If you stopped reading after hearing that super priorities exist, and believed that their existence was proof that labour regularly defrauds capital, you'd have very much not understood anything.
Honestly, almost all of your posts here feel like they're exercises in ignoring content. I'm done.
There's a lot of literature on 'the analysis', which happens to not be mine. It's actually one of the core elements of neoclassical economics.
>one could just as easily argue that labor is exploiting capital
No, one couldn't.
>In a chapter 11 bankruptcy, capital is lost while wages remain protected.
Depending on the jurisdiction, wages are provided a super-priority status. Other super-priority stakeholders are afforded equal protection amongst themselves. Priority stakeholders, such as lenders with security, are provided more protection than unsecured lenders, etc. Protection for missing wages exists solely due to rectifying legislation attempting to address of how disadvantaged a worker is when a business's assets are encumbered and they have no priority.
However, when it comes to managing risk, workers have to hope they'll get paid, while a secured lender can request assurances that potential super-priority stakeholders have been paid to determine the amount of exposure they're willing to entertain, and call their loans due in the event covenants and other monitoring systems indicate financial duress. Workers have no equivalent protective system.
Honestly most of these points feel like they're relatively uninformed and don't hold up to much scrutiny.