I find the whole balance rather interesting.

The worker thinks 'without my work, the owner would have nothing!'

The owner thinks 'without my business, the worker would have nothing.'

The truth is, both are right, to different degrees depending on the circumstances. A good owner should make workers feel they have a stake, whether by salary or ownership. A good worker should make the owner believe they are making a good decision by paying them.

I have no answer to the debate in the title, I just find this little sub-argument fascinating.

Perhaps society would be better off if more of us were owners?

You need a healthy mix of workers and owners. Those owners need incentives, and workers need protection.

Money is a powerful drug and society needs to tame the habit. Otherwise, you will end up with conditions equal to slavery for the workers and royalty for the capital owners.

All this will lead to is revolutions and bloodshed.

Its ok to sacrifice rapid growth, in cycles, to steady but slower growth that has none.

It would definitely be better off if more people felt they were participating in economic growth. Over the last few decades most growth has gone to a small number of people and the rest didn't really benefit. This leads to a very cynical and resigned attitude.

Not really possible. If everyone is an owner, no one is an owner. You can try completely abolishing the worker/owner dichotomy though, which is very difficult but probably possible.

That's what the creator economy is!

Distributism?

Small businesses?