If you feel that you could bring in $1000 without involving the company and keep it all for yourself, why don't you just do that instead? Might it be that you actually value having someone else manage the capital and legal compliance aspects, decide how resources will be expended, and take all the investment risks associated with running a business so that you can focus on your area of expertise and collect a guarantee salary?
1) Possibly, but getting an organization going where all those different tasks are taken care of often requires substantial up-front costs, i.e. "barriers to entry", which a person or organization who already has a lot of resources can afford, but a little guy like me can't.
2) New guy is unlikely to succeed in a market where there's a natural monopoly already filled by someone else. I'm not going to try to start a competitor to facebook.
3) Entrenched businesses have an interest in eliminating competition. Sometimes this happens naturally (walmart can take advantage of economies of scale in a way that 'mom and pop' down the road can't), and sometimes they go out of their way to prevent competition (e.g. big telecom bribing politicians to pass rules against municipal internet).
The resulting trend being large companies become more and more powerful over time, making it more and more difficult for an outsider to compete. This should be plainly obvious to anyone living in the USA, but it's theoretically the case even under completely non-corrupt circumstances (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...).
Therefore, no, I don't feel I could bring in 1000$ without them, but I am still being ripped off. The handout I give my employer is non-consensual.
