Marc Lamont Hill made a comment about “creating the desk” as a metaphor for his contribution to the Joe Budden Podcast. His point seemed to be that if he helped create the content and build the platform, he should be able to make money from the “desk” too—which helps explain why he joined the JBP $500-a-month clipping tier, which was recently increased. Fans can pay to join that same tier and potentially make money from the content Marc says he contributes to creating.

Marc also responded to Joe Budden and JBP fans calling him a “capitalist.” That criticism is interesting because Marc has been one of the biggest critics of capitalism on the platform. His response was essentially that if he helped create something that generates revenue, he should be able to participate in the financial upside.

That’s where I push back.

If we’re going to use the “desk” metaphor, we also have to ask: Who actually built and owns the desk?

Who paid for the microphones and cameras? Who pays the guests? Who funds the studio, production, employees, marketing and overall operation? Who takes the financial risk? Who negotiates the deals, sets the terms and signs the contracts?

My argument is simple: If anyone built the desk, it’s Joe Budden.

Marc and Ish absolutely contribute to the product. They can argue that their contributions are worth more money. They can negotiate for higher compensation, bonuses, equity or a different deal.

But contributing to the desk isn’t the same thing as owning the desk.

Joe built the business and provides the infrastructure that allows everyone sitting at that desk to get paid. He can set the prices, establish the terms and negotiate the contracts because it’s his business.

And if Ish or Marc don’t like the terms, they have options: negotiate for more, accept the deal, or walk away.

That’s why I don’t have an issue with them saying they believe they’re underpaid. They have every right to believe their work is worth more and make that case.

But if the argument is, “I helped create this, therefore I should be able to make money from it,” that’s also an argument that can be applied to the person who actually financed, built and owns the business.

So I understand Marc’s response to being called a capitalist. But ironically, arguing that you helped create something valuable and therefore deserve a greater share of the financial upside is itself a pretty capitalist argument.

At the end of the day, the bigger question is: Are they being underpaid for their contributions, or are they being paid according to the deal they agreed to while Joe retains ownership of the business?

Those are two very different arguments.