Okay, so it's the same "100% good, some fraction less than 100% bad" argument from before, but instead of being applied to your time, it's being applied to your potential earnings? That line of thinking is also flawed, because even though you theoretically capture 100% of the value when you work for yourself, the value you generate might be less than the value you generate when working for someone else. For instance, working on your own SaaS startup might allow you to capture 100% of the profits of the company, but you also have to take on a bunch of unrelated responsibilities (marketing, sales, accounting, legal, etc.) that you're not good at. For someone who's core competency is just programming, it's plausible that they make more working for themselves than trying to strike out on their own. Not to mention, the risk profiles of "working at MANGA" is entirely different than "working on your own SaaS".
>but “capture for yourself, recreationally or otherwise” includes capture for deferred gratification that doesn’t yield the lion’s share of the value to a remote capitalist via wage labor.
No, it doesn’t.
Weighing potential compounding of deferred gratification forms of capture when compared to recreational capture against nearly guaranteed degradation in some of the capacities to actually enjoy things and the risk of gambler’s ruin is an issue, sure, which the upthread paean to deferred gratification ignores the latter side of, but “capture for yourself, recreationally or otherwise” includes capture for deferred gratification that doesn’t yield the lion’s share of the value to a remote capitalist via wage labor.