"Ultimately it's a choice, as to what a company decides to focus more heavily on." I think you are conflating two issues. If any company were growing at more

"Ultimately it's a choice, as to what a company decides to focus more heavily on." I think you are conflating two issues. If any company were growing at more than 50% a year - there would probably not be much in the way of 'profit share' because it would be a really bad move. Those profits should almost assuredly be 're-invested' in the growth of the company. The 'profit share to employees' issue is really about a fundamentally different way to incentivize staff than other means. " Facebook staying private and implementing a profit sharing arrangement with its employees and shareholders in 2011, would have been a vastly superior deal for most of the people involved. They'll hit ~$16b in net income this year. They could nearly make every one of their employees a millionaire in one year, in 2018, via profit sharing." No - there is absolutely no reason that FB should be handing out 'a million dollars in profit' to each employee? Why on earth would it do that? It doesn't have to. Every company will pay more or less market wages. If you owned FB, why on earth would you want managers to be paying people 10x what they need to? FB private/public thing doesn't matter. If they stayed private, they'd have to compensate in 'rev share' something roughly along the lines of the value of the stock options they handed out. "They could have been radically profitable, instead they mistakenly focused on growing the size (bloat) of the company" ??? You're contradicting yourself here. The 'bloat' you're talking about is payment to employees. So you're saying they should have paid people less? Yes - I agree - they could have been profitable a long time ago, but they are 'not profitable' precisely because they are giving away too much 'revenue share' in the form of 'salary' to too many people.