It depends based on the example, but it’s very rare a normal non-exploitation based person could afford the entire infrastructure of the company single handedly unless they were rich enough to live off the backs of other workers.

Even then, you’re minimizing labour as if it’s one expendable part of how things are produced. It’s probably THE most important one. A general strike can bring entire nations to their knees worse than a power outage or other factor. If the owner of most companies didn’t show up to work, things would likely run just fine, if not even better sometimes.

Let’s give a good faith example here. Say you’re investing your personal life savings you earned through personal labour into a project and you rent/buy office space and tools and various other things needed to start a project. You can and should have more control compared to each worker you’re hiring to fill each position since you are investing more into the company. That doesn’t mean you should be the supreme dictator of the company still, because there are others invested in the company as well who should have proportionate say in how things affect them. You would likely have a more influential positional than most again, but it shouldn’t be total. It needs to be proportionate. And as that company grows, your investment will become dwarfed compared to the many others involved with the company and its growth. There’s no justification from any angle how one person could earn 100 million dollars while their workers make any normal wage. You are not putting 700 times more personal investment into the company than any worker. That’s impossible.

The idea that because one started a project initially that therefore they should have total ownership forever is logic you could use to justify monarchy. It just serves those already in power holding onto and expanding their power.