Under Capitalism, if a worker disagrees with how their boss allocates their time and labor, the worker is free to start a new business just as the founder once had to.
The worker is also free to seek superior employment, if they feel their worth is not being fully appreciated / utilized (and so on and so forth).
Workers aren't appreciated at Business X? Start Business Z that treats its employees better. There are countless examples of this in practice over the last 150 years.
Unions are also properly legal under Capitalism. That is, the free assembly of labor. If employees don't like how they are being treated, they can collectively negotiate to try to acquire more leverage.
That completely removes your complaint about allocation of labor and accountability. Also, your entire premise rests on the notion that people are owed a particular job - just try telling nature it owes you shelter and three meals a day. The reality is, the capital to fund that job comes from someone that had to first create it. The West is losing this century because it has become lazy and hyper-entitled.
Capital is stuff people want. It's a warehouse full of couches, or a truck full of iPads. Or, on a desert island, a pile of hand-carved tools. We can trade this "stuff people want" for "stuff we want."
Over time, we've developed abstractions called "dollar bills" that represent stuff people want. This allows me to have a more general form of capital--instead of having to exchange my "stuff people want" for what I want, I simply exchange it for money, and then trade that for what I want. This makes trade much easier--I don't have to find someone who wants 1,000 iPads in exchange for a piece of industrial equipment.
But I repeat--this is just an abstraction. To create $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000 of capital, resources must first be used to produce things that people want.
Now, in our modern society, there are all sorts of ways to get ahold of these abstractions. Some people work for them. Some people are given them by family members. Some people make bets--at casinos, at horse races, or on the stock market--and win. So it is certainly possible to point at a given possessor of capital and say--"look! he has capital, but has not produced things that people want!" But that's the nature of people who own capital, not of capital itself.
The worker is also free to seek superior employment, if they feel their worth is not being fully appreciated / utilized (and so on and so forth).
Workers aren't appreciated at Business X? Start Business Z that treats its employees better. There are countless examples of this in practice over the last 150 years.
Unions are also properly legal under Capitalism. That is, the free assembly of labor. If employees don't like how they are being treated, they can collectively negotiate to try to acquire more leverage.
That completely removes your complaint about allocation of labor and accountability. Also, your entire premise rests on the notion that people are owed a particular job - just try telling nature it owes you shelter and three meals a day. The reality is, the capital to fund that job comes from someone that had to first create it. The West is losing this century because it has become lazy and hyper-entitled.