3 ms·

> Net income (aka profit) is the extra cash flow that could have been spent. It's possible gross profit is the wrong metric, but the premise that net income is

> Net income (aka profit) is the extra cash flow that could have been spent. It's possible gross profit is the wrong metric, but the premise that net income is the right metric isn't something I accept. Net income is the money left over after it's been allocated out as the company has chosen. i.e. all the salaries have been paid, stock grants have been made, buildings and utilities are all paid, stock buybacks have been allocated, etc If they allocated a little less to exec pay, and a little more to warehouse worker pay, I don't even think they'd need to cut into the 33B they have leftover. But EVEN if we accept the compensation amazon has and only allow ourselves to play with net income - 33B is STILL $20k per employee. Do you know how life-changing $5k/year is when you're making 29k/year? That still leaves 15K of profit per employee (or 25B) that can go to people who didn't work for it.

dh2022 4y ago
Net income is all the money left after all the expenses are paid. Stock buybacks have no impact on net income (they are part of the cash flow statement, not the income statement). Excluding all the things you said to get to the metric you like means Amazon can function without executives, software developers (no stock grant expenses), warehouses (no buildings and utilities expenses).... Which is plainly not true.
- kennywinker 4y ago
  Yes, I agree, your straw-man is plainly false. Amazon does need executives, software developers, and warehouses. Amazon is a functioning + profitable business. If it can't continue to be a functioning + profitable business if it pays every employee a good wage, it doesn't deserve to exist anymore - it needs to die to make room for a business that CAN do that. But I don't actually think that amazon has to exploit its workers in order to stay profitable, and I think the numbers (at very least the 33B in net profits) back me up.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    You are welcome to start your own Amazon competitor with however much profit you would like. If you are willing to accept less profit than Amazon, then you should be able to steal customers and employees by offering lower prices and better quality of life at work. Same goes for Walmart/Target/any other retail business. Maybe all the execs at these established retail businesses working for decades know what they are doing. Or maybe people posting on the internet know how they could be running the business better and delivering goods and services at lower prices and paying workers more. If I were a betting man, I would bet that you would soon find profit margins are about as low as they can get for retail businesses and the competition very stiff. > I think the numbers (at very least the 33B in net profits) back me up. That profit is coming from AWS, Amazon video, and from the commission they collect from 3rd party sellers, not their retail operations. By the way, I am all for better labor laws and higher quality of life at work laws. I just do not see the point of criticizing individual businesses, especially those running at low profit margins with no moat. They are obviously in cutthroat competition already, otherwise the profit margins would be higher.
    - kennywinker 4y ago
      The point of my criticism is to show that we can do better without losing same day delivery. These companies are exploitive, and the more people who see that the more likely it is to change in one of three ways: Through public pressure. I don’t buy from amazon anymore because of this. Through government action. But given how partisan politics in the usa are, i wouldn’t hold my breath. Through action from workers. Unionization and work stoppages. I think this is the most likely and the most healthy option for our society. If you want to be a bystander while people’s lives get chewed up and spat out so a few people can get rich, that’s on your conscience.

dh2022 4y ago

Net income is all the money left after all the expenses are paid. Stock buybacks have no impact on net income (they are part of the cash flow statement, not the income statement). Excluding all the things you said to get to the metric you like means Amazon can function without executives, software developers (no stock grant expenses), warehouses (no buildings and utilities expenses).... Which is plainly not true.

kennywinker 4y ago
Yes, I agree, your straw-man is plainly false. Amazon does need executives, software developers, and warehouses. Amazon is a functioning + profitable business. If it can't continue to be a functioning + profitable business if it pays every employee a good wage, it doesn't deserve to exist anymore - it needs to die to make room for a business that CAN do that. But I don't actually think that amazon has to exploit its workers in order to stay profitable, and I think the numbers (at very least the 33B in net profits) back me up.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  You are welcome to start your own Amazon competitor with however much profit you would like. If you are willing to accept less profit than Amazon, then you should be able to steal customers and employees by offering lower prices and better quality of life at work. Same goes for Walmart/Target/any other retail business. Maybe all the execs at these established retail businesses working for decades know what they are doing. Or maybe people posting on the internet know how they could be running the business better and delivering goods and services at lower prices and paying workers more. If I were a betting man, I would bet that you would soon find profit margins are about as low as they can get for retail businesses and the competition very stiff. > I think the numbers (at very least the 33B in net profits) back me up. That profit is coming from AWS, Amazon video, and from the commission they collect from 3rd party sellers, not their retail operations. By the way, I am all for better labor laws and higher quality of life at work laws. I just do not see the point of criticizing individual businesses, especially those running at low profit margins with no moat. They are obviously in cutthroat competition already, otherwise the profit margins would be higher.
  - kennywinker 4y ago
    The point of my criticism is to show that we can do better without losing same day delivery. These companies are exploitive, and the more people who see that the more likely it is to change in one of three ways: Through public pressure. I don’t buy from amazon anymore because of this. Through government action. But given how partisan politics in the usa are, i wouldn’t hold my breath. Through action from workers. Unionization and work stoppages. I think this is the most likely and the most healthy option for our society. If you want to be a bystander while people’s lives get chewed up and spat out so a few people can get rich, that’s on your conscience.