Submitted 1 year ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to workreform@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c772d1de-f234-41d7-be1e-d02dacfbc249.jpeg
It’s disgusting how greedy and petty these multi-million dollar companies are that they won’t even remotely play fair with the people who actually make them all their money. Even worse they are hoping a few well paid AI programmers can eliminate the need for writers all together.
Take to the high seas and don’t give those bastards a cent!
There is a big distinction between multi-million and multi-billion companies that needs to be pointed out here.
Autocorrect. Should have been multi-billion.
Be interesting to add 2 more columns the C suite compensation packages and their percentage of income. Might help give people more context.
This is a great post, but I’d argue that evaluating the company’s net profit is better as it’s the actual profits the company makes at the end
Revenue is used because this industry is notorious for “Hollywood accounting” to avoid having any actual profits to avoid residuals based on net.
Some of the biggesr blockbusters of all time are, thanks to Hollywood accounting, net losers. Forrest Gump is a classic example: it made almost a billion dollars in revenue vs a $55 million budget. But thanks to tax evasion techniques the movie is actually a huge financial loser on paper, losing more than $65 million if you look at net.
You can’t trust non-workers, who exist entirely off the wealth they can cheat out of workers, to be honest.
So that is why gross revenue is used in Hollywood.
Exactly this. The classic example:
The reality is much more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it - and the Hollywood entertainment industry aren’t the only ones doing it anymore.
Hollywood accounting doesn’t apply to studios that are publicly traded, only their projects:
Some thoughts:
That’s really interesting. Thanks for explaining that, it was something I was totally unaware of. Now I have changed my mind and I think the WGA listed the right numbers.
Revenue is a better measure. Actual profits is very hard to measure since the numbers are obfuscated. These companies often stash their IP rights in a tax haven under a different company. Like how Apple uses the island of Jersey. End of the year the offshore company sends a massive royalties bill and boom their taxable income is slashed significantly.
“Ah I see now!” said the blind man Seriously though, that makes a lot more sense about why they use revenue instead of net profit
Well, no since this should be considered one of the expenses the companies will have to pay, revenue is the appropriate metric. I wouldn’t judge the cost to switch from aluminum to carbon fiber at Boeing against its profits, I’d measure it against revenue
I agree, but that came directly from a WGA statement.
Thank you for sharing! I probably wouldn’t have seen it otherwise.
Yes but if we give in now, where will it stop? - the execs
donut4ever@lemm.ee 1 year ago
I had a similar argument the other day with some capitalist asshole I know. He kept saying “do you want your fries at McDonald’s to be $30?”. Did the math for him and showed him that if McDonalds gave every single employee of theirs $5 raise, it’ll cost them ~ $250mil, and their profit for the year was $6b. He didn’t say a single word after that.
PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 1 year ago
If you’re gonna “do the math” for someone you should probably do it correctly. I don’t know where you got this figure from. In 2022, McDonald’s employed 200,000 people. There are 2080 working hours (52 weeks * 40 hours) in a year.
200,000 * 2080 * 5 = $2.08 billion
Of course, this is still an affordable amount of money for McDonald’s, but it is significantly more (about 8 times) than what you say it is.
donut4ever@lemm.ee 1 year ago
You’re assuming that all of their employees are full time employees.
Steeve@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Damn, you turned him into a mute
donut4ever@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Fuck them and fuck their bullshit. They’re just assholes who want everything for themselves.