this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
524 points (93.4% liked)

Work Reform

9833 readers
766 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] general_kitten@sopuli.xyz 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

would be more interesting to see how much more could those companies pay their employees if their profit was evenly distributed among them

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Would need to make sure to exclude costs like executive "compensation", stock buy backs, or any other methods used to artificially decrease profits to avoid taxes.

[–] singron@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Stock buybacks don't reduce profit for the company. They are not accounted as an expense that offsets income. Investors pay capital gains tax instead of income tax that they would pay on an equivalent dividend, which is probably what you are thinking of.

Net revenue, gross profit, operating income, EBITDA, and (net) profit are some well understood measures that take various things into account. E.g. net revenue subtracts the cost of inventory, but it doesn't subtract wages, so it's probably a good starting point for a discussion on redistributing earnings among workers.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It really depends on how much it costs them to do business. Payroll is only a part of the cost to do business. Companies like Walmart have massive real estate holdings which likely take a significant chunk of their revenue to pay off.

[–] dice@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

Not to mention the small matter of cost of goods sold

[–] Remmock@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you referring to stores and warehouses or do you mean they dabble in the real estate market?

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Stores and warehouses, obviously.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago
[–] Remmock@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ah, so these “massive real estate holdings” cost virtually nothing to them in construction costs, and are designed to require as little maintenance as humanly possible. In addition, their tax obligations on these real estate holdings are virtually nonexistent due to the severely discounted tax obligation they have for “bringing jobs to the area” (even though those jobs are shit). City and county governments fall all over themselves to give them as little tax obligation as possible.

Their “real estate holdings” are as much a drop in the bucket as employee pay.

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

It was a single example. But they also have to heat, cool, and power their enormous store areas, warehouses, frozen warehouses. There are absolutely lots of costs that big companies must cover besides just payroll.