Probably because it's a gameplay abstraction? The alternatives are to either have a full supply chain of all things your people need to live and pay them with goods, which would be really complex and not very historical, OR you hire workers and pay them even if they're sitting around but then many players see that as a sort of timer and source of unpleasant stress.

Money is just a convenient abstraction for allocated resources in either case.

Idk how the USSR or it's republics did accounting, but even under socialist conditions it would be conceivably helpful to account for building construction on a per unit basis because it lets city planners evaluate the relative value of labor and resources being put into a building.

For example if you have two sites where you can build the same apartment block but one is flat ground and another is hilly or marshy ground, then it makes sense to calculate the amount of labor, additional resources, and specialized equipment you would need to level the slope or build extra foundations on the swamp.

Lots of companies and organizations also carry out internal accounting where they invisibly pretend to pay themselves and their own divisions for work because it allows management to see where money is being used and how much.

"I'm sorry sir, we're out of unlimited geno-cide on AmeriKKKa and the WeSSt"

Last time I flew Tokyo to Beijing on China Eastern they served a meal. Just a 3 hour flight at kinda an awkward time so I didn't even expect it.

How much is it a factor that America has at will employment where the employer can fire the worker for arbitrary reasons like taking all of their leave?

Dr Disrespect for the Age of Consent

Pay isn't ownership but if you want to be sure that people are property paid then a profit sharing bonus is much better than simply calculating a wage increase because profit sharing accounts for the yearly variance in business performance.

Wages are much harder to adjust in most places and can't be pinned to a variable factor like business performance.

Please never take legal advice from random people on the internet. Something like this is too specific to local laws for anyone to give you meaningful advice unless they know all the details.

Find a local lawyer and call their office. Most will give you a free consultation to begin with.

"Is upholding fascist racial supremacy wrong? No, I've merely been upholding the fascist racial supremacy of the wrong people."

dunking on actual children

You know this is a good loophole. I'm gonna tell you about the time an older student (at least in his mid 30s) argued with the professor for about 5 mins in class about what the author of the assigned reading actually meant to say. The professor, to his credit, tried his best to explain in plain English terms what the article meant but the student just wanted to argue. In the end the professor goes "Okay, look at the article. Now look at the author's name. Okay, now look at your syllabus and look at my name."

Student dude immediately said "sorry" and sat the fuck down. He had been arguing with the professor over the professor's article all along.

I have to ask, is this an Anglo nation

This was an Anglo nation but it would surprise a lot of people to know that many Anglo nations don't have a written constitution or bill of rights.

I find it extremely funny how it pivots straight from "most Ukrainians have never seen a black person irl so they might stare at you" into "so anyway, they might call you the n word and a monkey".

Doubly funny because (white) Americans love to say shit like "Asia is the most racist because I went there once and people stared at me and asked me for photographs".

I won't tell on the first years because university is a time where you can have dumb takes and be forgiven as long as you learn from them.

Instead I will tell you about the time I was sued by a sov cit who filed a petition they wrote themselves. It laboriously detailed all the ways in which "I" (he had the wrong person) violated his constitutional rights - how I trampled on his freedom of speech, denied him a fair hearing, seized his property, etc etc - all with detailed references to the US constitution. The problem? We were not in the US, none of the stuff at dispute was in the US, and neither of us were American anyway. Dude straight up did his own research on a different legal system and just assumed it would apply where we were.