3 ms·

When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. It is important for a company to earn a profi

When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers.

sofixa 1y ago
> When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. If the company operates in such razor thin margins that it can't provide for sick leave for employees, something is terribly wrong. > It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers And you'll find that most companies pay as little as they can get away with. Google and Meta need to compete to get a limited (until recently) amounts of top talent. A railway couldn't care less about the employees.
- danielmarkbruce 1y ago
  It's called competition - it's the reason you get to sit there and type away on an incredible machine at a very low cost and eat food at a very low cost... The vast majority of businesses are operating on thin margins. Get in the real world, not some fantasy land.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. BNSF, one of the companies which is the topic of this conversation, has an operating ratio of 68% for 2024 (how much of their revenue goes towards operational costs). Their net income was $5 billion. They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave. > Get in the real world, not some fantasy land Get out of a libertrarian's wet dream and look around you, read up a little bit on various companies financials.
    - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
      Apple barely make the product. Look at the margins of all their suppliers. That fat line showing about $200b of cogs is filled with low margin businesses - the vast majority of the world is not some outlier like Apple. Gotta look more than one layer deep financial statement guy. People who actually read a lot of financial statements have looked at a looooot more than the ones of the names on TV.
      - sofixa 1y ago
        The topic of this conversation is BNSF and their ilk, I just threw Apple as a fun "you're even more wrong with your anecdote than with your main statement". What's your excuse for them abusing their employees? Why can't they afford to provide sick leave for their employees when not only do they have billions of net profit every year, many other railways around the world in the same type of business manage to do that and be profitable.
        danielmarkbruce 1y ago
        You edited your comments... could you be more disingenuous?
        sofixa 1y ago
        No answer, good to know you agree that companies like BNSF have the money to have basic human decency and empathy towards their employees. Yes, I edited my comment to add more data points when I collected them.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. Apple's margins are so high because the margins of their suppliers are so low (used to work for one of them) with some used to have suicide nets at their factories. Apple is an exception worldwide when it comes to HW margins, not the norm. >They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave. Shareholders care more about line going up then about the welfare of the workers.
  - TFYS 1y ago
    Competition is not the reason. The reason is workers choosing to improve things, invent things and make things more efficient. Competition is a way to incentivize people to do that, but it's not the only way.
    - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
      Workers don't get to do that without some capital allocated. Rowing is one thing, deciding direction is just as important - and you'll find that the people deciding which way to row are largely trying to win.
      - TFYS 1y ago
        Deciding direction is also just work. Why does the reward for that kind of work have to be ownership over the work other people do? An architect makes decisions about a building, a doctor makes decisions about treatments, a developer makes decisions about software architecture without needing to own the resulting building, patient or software, and they usually try to do their best. As long as there is some link between the quality of work you do and the rewards you get, people will in most cases try their best. Allocation of capital is no different, and in my opinion should not be treated differently. Giving capital allocators ownership/percentage of the work others do is too much, and leads to unnecessary centralization of power.
        danielmarkbruce 1y ago
        Because everyone involved agrees to it. If you want to be a dictator and decide what others can and cannot agree to, go try. I'm an employee, I agree to do certain things and the company agrees to certain things. No one is forcing either side.
        TFYS 1y ago
        Everyone "agrees" to it because there's no other choice, it's the system we have. Everyone agrees to it the same way people in communist countries agree to do what the state tells them to do. Most people have to agree, or the whole system will collapse. Even if you could say that people truly choose to give a piece of their paycheck to someone simply for being named the owner, it's not a reason not to consider limiting that right to choose. We limit many things that we consider harmful. This system is producing ever increasing inequality of wealth and power. There are now people so wealthy that they're able to break democracies. This will only get worse and worse.
  - hhghkj 1y ago
    The vast majority of companies can afford sick days for their workers. It's even good for morale, job satisfaction and performance. Ones that choose not to treat their workers with basic dignity are badly managed.
    - 0xBDB 1y ago
      American railroads have pretty good pay and benefits, including some of the last defined-benefit pensions left in the private sector. They didn't want to give in on same-day sick days (not the same as prescheduled PTO, which they did have) because it kills what they call precision train scheduling, which is basically running trains with the absolute minimum number of people possible. I'm not saying this was right or wrong, just that it's the reason.
TFYS 1y ago
They pay fat salaries because the talent they need is in high demand, not because they have fat profits. In any industry where that is not the case, a union is a must.
ethbr1 1y ago
> You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers. And here I was, under the impression that both Google and Facebook paid their moderators as little as possible.

sofixa 1y ago

> When a company loses money year after year it goes bankrupt. The company disappears. The workers lose their jobs. If the company operates in such razor thin margins that it can't provide for sick leave for employees, something is terribly wrong. > It is important for a company to earn a profit. You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers And you'll find that most companies pay as little as they can get away with. Google and Meta need to compete to get a limited (until recently) amounts of top talent. A railway couldn't care less about the employees.

danielmarkbruce 1y ago
It's called competition - it's the reason you get to sit there and type away on an incredible machine at a very low cost and eat food at a very low cost... The vast majority of businesses are operating on thin margins. Get in the real world, not some fantasy land.
- sofixa 1y ago
  I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. BNSF, one of the companies which is the topic of this conversation, has an operating ratio of 68% for 2024 (how much of their revenue goes towards operational costs). Their net income was $5 billion. They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave. > Get in the real world, not some fantasy land Get out of a libertrarian's wet dream and look around you, read up a little bit on various companies financials.
  - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
    Apple barely make the product. Look at the margins of all their suppliers. That fat line showing about $200b of cogs is filled with low margin businesses - the vast majority of the world is not some outlier like Apple. Gotta look more than one layer deep financial statement guy. People who actually read a lot of financial statements have looked at a looooot more than the ones of the names on TV.
    - sofixa 1y ago
      The topic of this conversation is BNSF and their ilk, I just threw Apple as a fun "you're even more wrong with your anecdote than with your main statement". What's your excuse for them abusing their employees? Why can't they afford to provide sick leave for their employees when not only do they have billions of net profit every year, many other railways around the world in the same type of business manage to do that and be profitable.
      - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
        You edited your comments... could you be more disingenuous?
        sofixa 1y ago
        No answer, good to know you agree that companies like BNSF have the money to have basic human decency and empathy towards their employees. Yes, I edited my comment to add more data points when I collected them.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro, which is made by Apple with their net profit margin of 24.3% for Q4 2024. Apple's margins are so high because the margins of their suppliers are so low (used to work for one of them) with some used to have suicide nets at their factories. Apple is an exception worldwide when it comes to HW margins, not the norm. >They can afford to have a little extra employees to cover fucking sick leave. Shareholders care more about line going up then about the welfare of the workers.
- TFYS 1y ago
  Competition is not the reason. The reason is workers choosing to improve things, invent things and make things more efficient. Competition is a way to incentivize people to do that, but it's not the only way.
  - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
    Workers don't get to do that without some capital allocated. Rowing is one thing, deciding direction is just as important - and you'll find that the people deciding which way to row are largely trying to win.
    - TFYS 1y ago
      Deciding direction is also just work. Why does the reward for that kind of work have to be ownership over the work other people do? An architect makes decisions about a building, a doctor makes decisions about treatments, a developer makes decisions about software architecture without needing to own the resulting building, patient or software, and they usually try to do their best. As long as there is some link between the quality of work you do and the rewards you get, people will in most cases try their best. Allocation of capital is no different, and in my opinion should not be treated differently. Giving capital allocators ownership/percentage of the work others do is too much, and leads to unnecessary centralization of power.
      - danielmarkbruce 1y ago
        Because everyone involved agrees to it. If you want to be a dictator and decide what others can and cannot agree to, go try. I'm an employee, I agree to do certain things and the company agrees to certain things. No one is forcing either side.
        TFYS 1y ago
        Everyone "agrees" to it because there's no other choice, it's the system we have. Everyone agrees to it the same way people in communist countries agree to do what the state tells them to do. Most people have to agree, or the whole system will collapse. Even if you could say that people truly choose to give a piece of their paycheck to someone simply for being named the owner, it's not a reason not to consider limiting that right to choose. We limit many things that we consider harmful. This system is producing ever increasing inequality of wealth and power. There are now people so wealthy that they're able to break democracies. This will only get worse and worse.
- hhghkj 1y ago
  The vast majority of companies can afford sick days for their workers. It's even good for morale, job satisfaction and performance. Ones that choose not to treat their workers with basic dignity are badly managed.
  - 0xBDB 1y ago
    American railroads have pretty good pay and benefits, including some of the last defined-benefit pensions left in the private sector. They didn't want to give in on same-day sick days (not the same as prescheduled PTO, which they did have) because it kills what they call precision train scheduling, which is basically running trains with the absolute minimum number of people possible. I'm not saying this was right or wrong, just that it's the reason.

TFYS 1y ago

They pay fat salaries because the talent they need is in high demand, not because they have fat profits. In any industry where that is not the case, a union is a must.

ethbr1 1y ago

> You'll find companies like google and facebook, who are making fat profits.... pay fat salaries to their workers. And here I was, under the impression that both Google and Facebook paid their moderators as little as possible.