O.k...Thanks for your reply.

According to your example wealth equates to profit, yes? Income is gross income, wealth is net income. I find this example acceptable since for me wages/benefits are not an expense and so not a part of gross income, they are a part of profit, or wealth. From an accounting standpoint one might say that wages/benefits are indeed an expense since they are a fixed cost unlike profit which is a variable dependent upon excess after paying overhead. I also do not have a problem with this. A contradiction? I would say not necessarilly. Because an accounting function is different than the ideology which drives a viewpoint. To call wages/benefits an expense is to call them cost. I don't buy this. Take this example, two companies create equivalent products at equivalent overhead, yet one company for whatever reason, brand identification, marketing, distribution arrangements, whatever, sells their product and pays their labor higher wages the base view would be that they are in a unsustainable condition because they have higher labor costs, it is viewed as a negative, instead of a positive, this company can afford to pay it's labor higher wages, (or give it's labor a higher percentage of the profit they have created), and that should be viewed as a positive.

I do agree that ultimately management is labor, and should be viewed as such. Management and labor are a team, to suggest otherwise creates an adversarial relationship which should not exist. Unless ownership is completely divorced from operations it also should be viewed as labor, being removed from every decision does not mitigate this. Labor is not aware of the intricacies of every step of operations either. What I am suggesting is that not only are management/ownership labor, labor is ownership as it resides in a place of primacy in the creation of wealth/profit. But what becomes an issue is that the wellbeing of the system is beyond human, especially in terms of corporations which, while they may not employ the bulk of people, drive the global economy. The mechanics of markets, the mechanics of capital, trump the interests of simple owner/labor relations.

Does labor "sell" their efforts? I don't really care for this analogy. Reason being labor is doing what it does, it creates. It owns it's efforts always. Capital markets, owners/management, benefit from these efforts more than labor but this is because of the cultural bias we have created. Labor should have equal claim to the profits resulting from it's creative powers. The organizing principle is as replaceable as labor.

(I am working to not "accept my own fultility" I have stock arguments for the real politik economic discussions here. My own bias is much more leftward leaning. And it will take me some time to become comfortable with the language and the mechanics of my arguments. I know they are for the most part sound since real world models do work. But I am working to resolve your well taken criticism in an earlier exchange).