I would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value.
Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades.
I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future.
I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.
No. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work.
He's not entitled to additional value the recipient of the work may or may not get from him completing the job, unless he negotiates that up front. It seems likely that no one in their right mind would agree to pay the carpenter profit sharing for every transaction that may occur from that building. They'd find another carpenter.
Could you make the argument that the carpenter should be given the option to be paid in equity or in cash, if both parties agree to it? Is there any argument against giving people the option to choose the sort of compensation risk profile that works best for their individual situation?
Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades.
I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future.
I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.