• Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    My fault for not being able to read teeny tiny gray text on a white background, I guess.

    Anyway, comparing revenue to worker compensation isn’t really very useful. Payroll comes out of that revenue, as does every other cost of doing business. Compare payroll to profit, or to executive compensation, if you want to make a point. Yeah, worker compensation sucks, but just comparing it to “the biggest number we could find” doesn’t mean anything.

    • intensely_human
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also these numbers are going to be higher for bigger operations.

    • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, you’re right, there’s no wealth gap problem, why even bother talking about it?

      • nul@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what they said. They were commenting that comparing payroll to revenue is like comparing apples and oranges. If you make an apples to apples comparison, like between payroll and profits, you can make a more defensible argument that income inequality is a problem which needs to be fixed.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Misrepresenting the issue causes people on the side of labor to be less effective in their efforts, because they’re operating with flawed data, and makes it so that people on the side of capital can more easily disregard the concerns of labor.

        There are solid and useful comparisons to be made, as I previously mentioned. Worker salary vs. corporate revenue isn’t one of them.