3 ms·

1. I can dig splitting up big tech companies, that can make sense in some form. 2. But why should workers get 78% of profits? Since when is that a sensible thin

by dvh1990 5y ago

1. I can dig splitting up big tech companies, that can make sense in some form. 2. But why should workers get 78% of profits? Since when is that a sensible thing to do for a company?

intricatedetail 5y ago
If Apple can have 78% margin, why workers cannot?
- dvh1990 5y ago
  Because free market is predicated on a business setting its margin to whatever works, aka the delta between what customers are willing to pay for the products and what it costs to run the business (salaries included). Workers get paid based on market price for their work plus some premium for skill, depends on the worker. Why should a company pay more than what workers demand? How would that make sense as a strategy? Why not use the money to expand the company instead? Or pay the shareholders? I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but otherwise we're looking at socialism at best, weird charity at worst.
  - clairity 5y ago
    it's odd that you'd prescribe value-based pricing for a company but not for labor (where you prescribe cost-plus pricing). in a set of fair markets, we'd expect both to be value-based. moreover, we'd expect competition to drive down profits to an appropriate risk-adjusted level, and worker pay to be more equitable with (and perhaps higher than) shareholders and executive managers. the latter is because worker risk is typically concentrated in their (often single) employer, whereas shareholders (and executives) are typically more diversified and less exposed to the risks of a given firm.
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  They could have. Apple is a publicly traded company.
- olliej 5y ago
  A hypothetical margin based on “expert” testimony paid for by one of the parties, and only applying to one portion of the business. It also fails entirely to account for capital expenditure, because that doesn’t get reflected in margins. Seriously, look at how much capital expenditure is involved in the big data centers made by any of the FAANG companies, and realize that those aren’t reflected in margins. Profit that isn’t distributed to outside entities is what allows corporations to buy manufacturing capacity in advance. Distributing all profit to workers means a company doesn’t get to have savings for hard times, doesn’t get to make investments in new technology, build giant round spaceship buildings, etc

1. I can dig splitting up big tech companies, that can make sense in some form. 2. But why should workers get 78% of profits? Since when is that a sensible thing to do for a company?

intricatedetail 5y ago

If Apple can have 78% margin, why workers cannot?

dvh1990 5y ago
Because free market is predicated on a business setting its margin to whatever works, aka the delta between what customers are willing to pay for the products and what it costs to run the business (salaries included). Workers get paid based on market price for their work plus some premium for skill, depends on the worker. Why should a company pay more than what workers demand? How would that make sense as a strategy? Why not use the money to expand the company instead? Or pay the shareholders? I know I'm playing devil's advocate here, but otherwise we're looking at socialism at best, weird charity at worst.
- clairity 5y ago
  it's odd that you'd prescribe value-based pricing for a company but not for labor (where you prescribe cost-plus pricing). in a set of fair markets, we'd expect both to be value-based. moreover, we'd expect competition to drive down profits to an appropriate risk-adjusted level, and worker pay to be more equitable with (and perhaps higher than) shareholders and executive managers. the latter is because worker risk is typically concentrated in their (often single) employer, whereas shareholders (and executives) are typically more diversified and less exposed to the risks of a given firm.
anonuser123456 5y ago
They could have. Apple is a publicly traded company.
olliej 5y ago
A hypothetical margin based on “expert” testimony paid for by one of the parties, and only applying to one portion of the business. It also fails entirely to account for capital expenditure, because that doesn’t get reflected in margins. Seriously, look at how much capital expenditure is involved in the big data centers made by any of the FAANG companies, and realize that those aren’t reflected in margins. Profit that isn’t distributed to outside entities is what allows corporations to buy manufacturing capacity in advance. Distributing all profit to workers means a company doesn’t get to have savings for hard times, doesn’t get to make investments in new technology, build giant round spaceship buildings, etc