This belief emerges from a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between employer and employee. Just like when you hire a plumber to install a toilet this does not mean he owns part of the toilet relative to his contribution in it being there; in the same way the workers do not own the products of a factory. In fact trying to structure society on that absurd notion is untenable. You absolutely can not calculate everyone's contribution, not just because there are too many factors, but also because value added is a subjective and ever changing quantity. There is a reason that people who make this claim never ever build factories, these people lack sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function.

There is no need to CALCULATE anything. It's a simple fact. And you state that every economist lacks sufficient understanding of reality to make a factory function. I beg to differ. You don't seem to know economics or economists very well. Some of us are smart people.

THERE IS ONLY ONE MARKET WITH PERFECT COMPETITION: the labor market

This just isn't true. Unions exist. Competence is not easily measurable. Worker value comes from thousands of factors including personality traits. Nepotism exists. Employers are not all knowing, and this ignorance prevents and efficient market, and an inefficient market is not competitive. All of these individually disprove your claim, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The existence of unions has nothing to do with my claim. And again worker value DOES NOT NEED TO BE MEASURED. Nepotism exists but not in the LABOR market. It exists for choice executive functions a lot more than rank and file LABOR. I also did not state that all aspects of the labor market are always only in perfect competition, only that it is the only market in which this occurs to a significant degree. That you lack the ability to understand this does not disprove it.

There is definitely a conversation to be had about the growing income gap between the rich and the poor, but beyond identifying that a gap exists and is growing you don't seem to understand it at all and yet are making extremely arrogant conclusions about it. That there are problems that can be identified in capitalism is in no way a valid argument for socialism. That is a logical fallacy. If ford cars are unreliable that does not necessarily mean that dodge cars are more reliable; they could very well be less reliable.

This statement means absolutely nothing. As an economist I am fully qualified to make the statement I make, and replying meaningless platitudes does nothing to bolster your (is there one?) counter-argument.

On top of that the income gap is a red herring; meaning that it is a distraction from a far more important factor. What really matters is not the gap but the absolute level of wealth for any given individual. And the data clearly shows that Capitalism raises more people out of poverty and creates more wealth for the working poor than any other system. Communism certainly makes everyone equal; equally poor. That should not be a goal.

You still think socialism and communism are related if not the same. You aren't qualified to talk about these things. You speak out of ignorance and disinformation. It does not paint you in a very good light. Please educate yourself more.

Oh, of course. It is whatever you say it is despite all the literature contradicting you. Despite the fact that you can't even articulate a definition of it and rely on cherry picking some policy that you think is working and saying: see it's something like this and since my example works anything I propose and call socialism will therefore also work. If you want to advocate for a particular policy then propose that and lets have a discussion on that particular policy. Don't push socialism as a concept, claiming it is only this one policy you like, then when some fool accepts your nonsensical argument and agrees to socialism you bring in a slew of other policies that you will claim fall under socialism. Social safety nets are a part of socialism, but socialism is not a social safety net. You got it ass backwards.

You want a definition? Sure:

Socialism I. Definition Socialism is an economic philosophy based on the need for regulations on capitalism. Unchecked capitalism, most economists agree, can create serious problems in the long term, since short-term personal profit does not motivate companies to take care of infrastructure, the environment, or their workers. Socialists emphasize this fact and argue that only the government can solve the problems created by capitalism. Other economic philosophies generally acknowledge the problem, but advocate other solutions to it, while only a few extremists deny that there is any problem with absolute capitalism.

Although many people think that socialism and capitalism are completely incompatible systems, the fact is that most developed nations operate on a combination of both. For example, nearly every major city in the developed world has some system of government-run public transportation, such as bus lines or a subway. There are also laws against child labor, unsafe workplaces, and reckless pollution, and government programs that help provide education, food, and healthcare to the poor. All of these are socialist ideas that exist in relative harmony with capitalist economies. Capitalism vs. socialism is a question of balance, not an “either/or” question.

From: https://philosophyterms.com/socialism

Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. But I will play along and ask away. Why do socialists always need to steal the means of production and never create it? After all, under capitalism everything socialists advocate for is allowed. Workers can own the factory. Worker owned factories can set up welfare systems. If you believe in it then live it. Instead socialist are always trying to use force to take wealth away from others and redistribute it to themselves. The motivation is clear, and it clearly contradicts the rhetoric.

I have stated it before and will state it again: you do not understand what the word "socialism" means. Therefore you equate it with communism, marxism, leninism. These are THREE WHOLE WORDS for basically one idea. Do you seriously think the word "socialism" which came over a century before these other 3 words means THE SAME THING? WHY???? Yes, people have been using them interchangeably AND THAT IS INCORRECT.

I will repeat: Socialism is ABSOLUTELY tied to capitalism. They work together, hand in hand. There is no capitalist system without some degree of socialism. There is no socialism without there being also a capitalist system at the same place and at the same time. The two are intrinsically, and BY DEFINITION entertwined. There is no contradiction between them. You're thinking of Marxism, Leninism, Communism: all these are contrary to both Capitalism and Socialism. Stop drinking the marxist-leninist kollaid please! It makes you spew lies, propaganda and nonsense.

And oh my god, you said something true in your last sentence: Social safety nets are part of socialism, but they ARE not the whole of socialism. While being blindingly obvious to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about this topic, I salute the truthfulness of your statement.