No not really. If I generate $1m of value for a company and they pay me $90k a year that isn't really sharing profit.
The problem is that in most cases you can't do that. You might have been the person who made the last push to make the revenue possible, but you were building on the work of everyone else who was working for that company and you were leveraging someone else's resources to make it happen.
We have to have some way to agree what portion of that profit can reasonably be attributed to you. To avoid complicated math and guesswork every quarter, most of us agree to a fixed salary as a reasonable estimate for a fair share of the value we're creating.
I want it to be an equal equity corp basically every hour invested earns you shares based on your senior and tenure.... Sr dev multiplier x 2 years with company for example.
Then we'd earmark like 30 percent of revenue to go into profit sharing and each state gets a reward.
The shares also calculate your voting threshold.
Senior team will be given an edge so there's an ethical dictator but not an insurmountable thing.
It might take 10 people to out vote the execs but you can't buy shares it's all earned by actions and time investment etc...
I also want to build an ERP system that can actually run a co-op like this with multiple streams of income, multiple point pools to reward employees or even customers etc....
It'd also network with other co-ops to build symmetry like Amazon marketplace does for sellers, everyone would be invested in every other syndicated companies success.
Sales people often can get up to or more than 50% of the profits (after all expenses) as commission. I've seen up to 80 or 90 percent for companies with extreme growth focus.
Programmers don't generate value directly the same way, but often you can attribute value to products they create and compensate them fairly.
The bargain I've made instead is that I get a very good base salary and call it a day. When the company grows because of my contributions, I negotiate a higher salary, but I don't have to think about it from month to month.
I'm just saying, if I have an employee and he makes me $1m a year, I'm going to pay him well - I'll pay that employee what is fair in the context of what value we enable him to generate for us.
That usually means the employee is worth at least 50% of that in compensation, btw.
This is why if you bring a deal to a company as a sales person commissions are around that number (50% of profit).
Which is to say that cost/value proposition is never simple. I've been at companies where people were paid simply not to jump to competitors.