He's (well, the shareholders) still taking the surplus value of the work of all employees while they did most of said work. And you may be in a voluntary relationship but for many people, such a relationship is required to survive and it may not be so easy to find work elsewhere (especially when you're not in tech).
Do you allow for this to work both ways? For example, when the company tanks, the shareholders take the brunt of the losses, while most of the employees (at least the types of employees that are on HN) likely move on to another job at another company without much trouble...
You can't count the upsides for the shareholders without counting the downsides as well.
How do they "take the brunt of the losses" when the company tanks in a limited liability model ? unless you mean the actual loss of their stocks, and (at least most of the time) the lack of compensation for them ? because in that case what they're losing are the very tokens of ownership that allowed them to extract the aforementioned surplus value unfairly - the tokens that in my view should mainly belong to the actual value producers.
That's not to say that investors shouldn't be compensated for their initial risks when an actual funds injection is required, mind you; but them being compensated ad vitam eternam - and more generally, them actually owning the structure - makes very little sense morally for me (and beyond "morally", I don't see how this can result in anything else than progressive concentration of wealth society-wide in the long term).
You also assume people can "move on to another job" without too much trouble; again, that may hold true in tech or similar popular domains but it's far from true for a lot of people.
