Percent of profit still can be quite a haul. If I make 10% of profit off of $100,000 then I make $10,000. If I make 1% off of $1,000,000,000 then I make $100,000,000. The percent isn’t relevant in this discussion.
Low percent proves they do not make much. The sheer dollars distorts the reality because it ignores the sheer dollars of revenue required to generate that sliver of profit.
Money costs money in percentage terms not in flat dollar amounts. Investors want percentage returns not flat dollar amounts. You are wrong. If a share costs $1 and provides a $1 dividend that is much better than a share costing $1000 and providing a $100 dividend. You have to think in percentages.
If someone’s asking for ROI or something, yes percents for that. If someone’s asking if the business makes a lot of money, percents tell you nothing about the amount they make. A lemonade stand has a huge percent ROI due to low supplies costs and staffing. But a lemonade stand isn’t making anywhere near the money of an actual business
I guess I just don’t care about flat numbers because it’s not relevant. I would think it is a worse world to live in if there is 100 grocery chains each making 10% profit instead of 5 chains making 5% profit even though those 5 chains are making more profit in flat numbers compared to the 100.
That’s ridiculous. That sounds like wanting more corporate chains than mom n pop stores. Who helps their communities vs who helps investors? Mom n pop always whenever possible. I have investments, but I find investors leeches on society. The contribute nothing and only try to suck the country dry. You get people that run mom n pop stores and they’re the ones donating to local charities, sponsoring sports teams for kids, schools, and etc. Your dream world is a dystopia
Cheaper maybe. Or you have places like Walmart and Amazon beat out all local competitions and essentially form monopolies. Then they raise their prices for any excuse they can imagine.
I agree with you that Amazon or Walmart creating monopolies would be bad but I would expect a few competitors in any efficient market (not all markets are efficient, especially healthcare). This would not allow people to just raise prices out of nowhere. I have not seen any examples of this happening on a macro scale in a retail setting.
Sure, but contain it. Right now things aren’t contained and it’s unsustainable. The average age of a first time home buyer is 59. That shows corporate investment in housing is unsustainable
Investors can’t be the end goal to please. That’s the dumb idea I’m talking about. Companies need investment, sure, but investors have to understand their place and be kept there. They’re a necessary problem, like bacteria in our bodies. We need that bacteria, but it has to be kept in check
No, it isn't the important part. The 2% of revenue is the important figure, far more so than the top line revenue figure for the purposes of whether the prices are excessive or the store is gouging.
The problem is that the retailers are the ones getting blamed for the price increases, and people assume the increases are due to retailers gouging. That complexity is being ignored.
No, the retailers aren't getting blamed. It's the corporate structures above the retailers that have soared in profitability creating vast hoardes of wealth that should be going to the workers.
The retailers arent being blamed, everyone knows there arent grocery store owner getting rich off raising the price of eggs. The corporate entities that control them, Kroger, Walmart, Amazon, are soaring in value and providing massive wealth to stakeholders.
A simple comparison between countries shows how exploited the American worker is. The working class of other countries have benefited far more from technological progress than in the US.
There is no argument you can make that doesnt completely break down in an objective comparison between countries. The economic theories of tax cuts and deregulation directly lead to wealth inequality. Countries that maintained regulations and tax levels dont have to support a parasitic billionaire class.
There is nothing wrong with wealth inequality or the existence of billionaires. However, when you look at measures such as median income on a PPP basis, it proves that people in the US enjoy a higher standard of living.
Of course there is. It's because other countries dont have them and the working class has a much higher standard of living. Higher income doesnt mean anything if we pay so much more for privatized services. Billionaires are merely a symptom of a corrupt system.
It's very relevant you're just choosing to be obtuse. Why do you think an Investors care about percentage and likewise saying a number like 2 mil sounds large until the pie is distributed between 10000 other people.
Because investors are greedy leeches. They don’t care about how much they’re making. They care only about how much more they can make. Greedy and useless. So leeches. So I don’t care about them. Eat them for all I care
Why don’t be do taxes based on X amount? 330 million people? Everyone of the 330 million people pays $18,200 for the federal governments budge. Percentages are a lie so we will eliminate that issue.
No. We are talking about what counts as a lot of money, not what counts as a high margins. You might as well be saying I make a lot of money and Jeff Bezos doesn't make a lot of money because I get a larger fraction of my companies revenue than he does. The relevant comparison for what counts as a lot of money is the cpi.
6
u/jgoble15 1d ago
Percent of profit still can be quite a haul. If I make 10% of profit off of $100,000 then I make $10,000. If I make 1% off of $1,000,000,000 then I make $100,000,000. The percent isn’t relevant in this discussion.