Your argument has merit, but his does too. The magic word is "negotiation," which two parties engage in to determine which rights and responsibilities they have when they enter into a contract. Owning the means of production and working to produce are mutually beneficial, so there should be a balance. An employer should have reasonable control over his property, and his employees should be reasonably reimbursed for their service. As an employee you can't just see yourself as an individual. You're also part of a workforce, which goes back 120 years (in your case). The company wouldn't be very good at making money without that workforce. Both you and the company are part of society, the smalles unit of which, the family, is at the start of that production chain producing able workers. That company owes your parents, and by extension, owes society. BIG TIME! So finally, parttaking in society comes with rights and duties, and nobody ideally is a slave, and just as ideally, nobody has complete control of the means of production without taking on a responsibility for those that produce. EDIT: Scrap that part about the other guy having a point. He's an idiot.