• chellewalker@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    To save people from having to squint at the small text; top chart is measured in seconds, bottom chart is measured in days.

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I’m having a hard time with the realities of this. How much time should a corporation take to earn the salary of the average employee? What percent of a company’s yearly profits would be appropriate to be spent on salaries? Many of the companies are exceeding 1/12. Is that enough? If not, what is?

    I know I’ll probably be on the wrong side of things (again), but I didn’t find this graphic stirring. Is there a number out there that people find acceptable?

      • Hillock@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Even if we compare it to profits the time frame just switch to minutes. Walmart made a net profit after taxes of 14 billion. That translates to 26k per minute.

      • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Shouldn’t the discussion revolve solely around SPENDABLE income? Am I misunderstanding something? I’m sure I am.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          I thing comparison to the employee salary makes no sense whatsoever. Different businesses have different expenditure structures depending on various things, like the type of business their are doing. In some companies, salaries might be dominating expense, in some others barely noticeable. Says nothing about how “fair” the business is.

        • Efwis@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          No, salaries are based a pre-tax basis. In other words you’re told you’ll make $120,000 per year, that amount is before taxes.

          • betz24@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            But companies also pay taxes before even paying you. So they’ll pay 140k to pay you 120k which you’ll earn 100k (along those lines)

            • Kaefor@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              They pay tax after paying you.

              Payroll is an expense that gets deducted from revenue before calculating taxes.

              They pay employer contributions/insurance/deductions but you pay the tax on it. It’s to avoid double taxing that money (corp pays tax and you pay tax).

              Edit for replies: yes, they pay payroll tax but that is based on payroll, and is a percentage of payroll. The other replies were referring to bottom line tax and revenue/profit. Maybe I should have been clearer but I was trying to keep it easy and not muddy the waters.

              • betz24@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                8 months ago

                I have run payroll myself. When you run payroll, a company pays taxes to the government. Every paycheck. There are taxes the company is liable for and not employees.

  • porkins@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I came here to tear this apart as being liberal propaganda, but was pleasantly surprised that others already took care of it. I am liberal, but not when it comes to economics. You can’t go throwing around numbers when you don’t understand how the economy operates and businesses function in general.

      • porkins@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative involves specific stances on two different aspects of governance. Social liberalism emphasizes individual rights, equality, and social justice, often advocating for policies like marriage equality, abortion rights, and anti-discrimination laws. It’s about how society should be organized and how individuals should be treated within it.

        Fiscal conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on economic policy. It advocates for reduced government spending, lower taxes, and minimal government debt. This approach is about how the government manages its finances, aiming for efficiency and reduced intervention in the economy.

        Libertarianism, while it can share some aspects of both social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, is a broader political philosophy. It emphasizes individual liberty as its core principle, advocating for minimal government intervention in both personal lives and the economy. This includes a strong emphasis on free markets, personal freedom, and limited government across all aspects of life.

        So, while there are overlaps, especially in terms of economic policy with fiscal conservatism, libertarianism as a philosophy extends beyond just economic or social issues. It’s a comprehensive worldview about the role of government and individual freedom, whereas being a social liberal and a fiscal conservative usually refers to specific policy preferences within the existing political system.

        I believe in appropriate regulation of the free market to prevent monopolies and improper collusion, however it is not fair to criticize companies in a vacuum for how quickly they cover employee overhead costs, because that is just one line item on their budget. The point being made by the author is that the company may have more money to give, but that is shortsighted framing of the issue to blame companies without understanding the economics of their business.

  • Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Revenue? Profit? EBITDA? Without a definition for what “make” means, this is useless, and verges on propaganda.

  • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Look at all those healthcare companies. Fifty years ago, such a list might have a Big Pharma company, but no patient care portals at all (hospitals, pharmacies, etc). Now they dominate the whole list.

    And it’s also worth noting that several of these are also huge players in the opioid crisis, including the four who settled to avoid state lawsuits that would have gutted them (looking at you Cencora, McKesson, Johnson&Johnson, and Cardinal Health).

    • DarthBueller@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Hey, maybe you would know… why are pharmacies/pharmacists being sued for the opioid crisis? I could understand suing pharmacies back in the day when pharmacists were able to dispense meds without a Dr’s Rx, but when Congress stripped pharmacists of basically all power except strictly following a written script in the early 80s as part of the war on drugs, it seems like modern pharmacies have two options with an opioid Rx. Do their jobs and fill it, or do their jobs and don’t fill it. And the filling it job seems like the more responsible choice. I am a lawyer and I really don’t understand the theory of recovery and I enjoy talking about it more than reading up on it. Is it just that the pharmacies have deep pockets?