There was an argument I heard that workers take as much risk as an entrepreneur/investor.

Backed by the additional point that this is because they're also taking a chance on the job by moving places, leaving their previous job, enduring difficult working conditions, etc.

This is very much true.

Hence, it was argued that the workers deserve to be compensated for the risk as much as the entrepreneur/investors.

If the argument is that the compensation ought to be higher, I can see that. But if the argument is that the compensation should be as much as, I cannot.

This is where the time preference for the receipt of compensation plays a role.

And of course, uncertainty in the receipt.

The entrepreneur/investor is willing to delay his returns and potentially face the chance of not getting any returns at all from his investment whereas the worker gets paid sooner for his labour, ie his investment, and with certainty.

He has the leverage of being able to save what he wants, leaving his job immediately and simply cause production by not working.

In a market economy, as a self-owning individual, he is free to leave anytime he wants and form unions with other workers also.

The worker has all the leverage in a market economy.

But this whole thing misses a fundamental factor that distorts everything mentioned above: the quality of money.

Worker earns in money that depreciates > he has no savings > his standard of living does not improve but the costs keep going up > no wages are enough for him

Entrepreneur earns his returns in money that depreciates > his profits are never enough > he does not accumulate capital to increase productivity > he has to squeeze as much as possible with the existing capital by consuming it > he cannot afford to pay his workers more or hire more workers

Bad money ruins everything