• general_kitten@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    10 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • Remmock@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

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

          • Remmock@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.