• underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Brace yourself for a tidal wave of corporate apologists rushing to point out that “revenue isn’t profit!,!”

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What’s that? You want to share your four-screens-at-a-time account with three other people outside your house?

          Fuck you, pay us more.

    • uphillbothways@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Profit is the portion of revenue that is stolen from workers and given to shareholders. Profit is bad. Revenue is good.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unless you use that revenue to do stock buybacks, then it’s not considered profit but you still get to steal it from the workers. That way you can cry about unprofitability while all your shareholders and c suites crank up the exploitation of workers and consumers chasing “profitability” until the business collapses.

        • uphillbothways@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Which is crazy, right? If a stock sale allows an investment in a business, a stock buyback should be a paying off of that debt, freeing more revenue in the future to be used explicitly to pay workers who generate that revenue. How the fuck that is justified in instead enriching the value of other investments still held by other investors shows the selective use of the analogy by corporate interests and that the whole house of cards is just bullshit.

      • ripcord@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For the most part, it’s not given to the shareholders, either. Dividends are pretty rare these days (which is when stocks largely went from being an ownership investment to - mostly - a form of gambling)

        • norbert@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because fuck Netflix, nobody believes for a minute they’re not profitable and couldn’t afford to pay writers and actors.

        • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t realize people can’t do a 10 second google search on their own. 🙄

          Net income isn’t the whole story anyways, especially when this article points out that one of their costs is lobbying for a cause that isn’t necessary. They’re raking in billions of dollars every year.

          • kirklennon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I didn’t realize people can’t do a 10 second google search on their own.

            You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit and then provide a number that is not profit. What was the point of commenting at all if the number you provided had no relevance?

            • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              My quote:

              streamers are currently being forced to reckon with their profitability — or lack thereof.

              profitability

              Your misinformed quote:

              You specifically chose to quote a sentence about profit

              profit

              There’s a very important difference there that I think you’re not built to understand.

              • ripcord@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m not a shill as far as I know. What if I agree with them that it would have made more sense to mention profit #? Do I instantly become a “shill” too? If so, where can I get my check?

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      …but it’s not. And I really think people either don’t understand that or they are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.

      Being level-headed and fact-driven isn’t “corporate apologist”, it’s how you maintain integrity and don’t derail your own movement by being dishonest about shit that doesn’t even matter.

      It’s like when Trump lies about his golf games. No one cares about his golf games but it makes you realize that if he’s willing to blatantly and badly lie about something so trivial, he’s probably also lying about absolutely everything else about him that might even remotely appear negative.

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Plenty of people understand it, and some of them understand that profit is so malleable that it’s not really a useful measure of a company’s financial health. What really matters is how much they make over their essential production operational expenses. They can tailor their non essential expenses to seem as profitable or unprofitable as they want and use stock valuation tricks like buybacks to make money for shareholders regardless.

        What does it matter if the company is profitable or unprofitable on paper when certain people can make lots of money off it either way? Twitter was “unprofitable” it’s entire life but somehow I bet the executives still got their bonuses, I doubt the shareholders were dissatisfied with their stock valuations or the buybacks, and it sure didn’t stop them from acquiring other companies.

        • stonedemoman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thank you for putting this more eloquently than I could. I must admit, I was losing my cool with people being irrational about this.

          I don’t know if people are ignoring expense scaling and stock buybacks or purposely choosing to hide it.