4 ms·
(a) https://media.giphy.com/media/uiYgcNCdXfrck/giphy.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/uiYgcNCdXfrck/giphy.gif — I am no man ;) (b) If you earn 2500$ a month,
by kuschku 7y ago
(a) https://media.giphy.com/media/uiYgcNCdXfrck/giphy.gif https://media.giphy.com/media/uiYgcNCdXfrck/giphy.gif — I am no man ;)
(b) If you earn 2500$ a month, do you actually have 250$/month after all expenses are paid? I don’t. I’m happy if I have any money left at the end of the month.
An average employee has no savings whatsoever, and can’t even fully pay all their expenses. 95% of the western world would be happy if they would have 10% of their income left after expenses at the end of the month. 100% of the rest of the world would be happy with even any money left at the end of the month.
Companies are making far more profit than any single employee ever could dream of, often with massive profit ratios (Target and Walmart are at 25% to 30%, as is Google — that’d mean 830$ left after expenses for a person earning 2500$!), and many of the companies with the highest profit ratios are pure middlemen, providing no real benefit at all.
- scarface74 7y agoWell, if the “middleman is providing no benefit”, then why would you want the government to force policies that don’t allow Disney to own its own streaming service and force it to deliver its content through other companies - ie middlemen. But, you are still avoiding the central question. If you want to have the government force Disney to use middlemen because you think it’s unfair for them to be both the producer and the distributor, why single out movie producers and not software makers, authors, producers or even physical good makers? Should Apple also not be able to have Apple stores and be forced to only sale products through “middlemen who bring no real benefit at all”?