The $15 Minimum Wage Is Turning Hard Workers Into Black Market Lawbreakers

[dblack]

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

Well, you know. Somebody's gotta pay the tab.

 

[Howard Roark]

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

 

[Howard Roark]

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

 

[hadit]

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

It's doing very well right now. Just how much better so you think it can get?

 

[danielpalos]

Yes. It is a complex issue. Your last paragraph is one possibility, but it ignores the obvious. Corporations don't create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy never create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Typically, low/middle income earners create the most demand for goods/services.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs. We're at max employment right now, so I wouldn't worry about job losses if people start to earn a living wage.

We've tried everything else. Prob. time to try something that actually works.

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

we can blame the right wing?

 

[danielpalos]

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

It's doing very well right now. Just how much better so you think it can get?

we can make money instead of lose money on public policies.

 

[hadit]

If you put more money into the hands of these hourly workers, then they'll have more money to spend...thus creating jobs.

If you take more money out of the hands of their employers, then they'll have less money to spend...thus destroying jobs.

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

we can blame the right wing?

Obviously, you will, but that's what you do in every case.

 

[hadit]

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

It's doing very well right now. Just how much better so you think it can get?

we can make money instead of lose money on public policies.

You need to spin the phrase wheel again. You keep using the wrong ones.

 

[Howard Roark]

Incorrect. Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut. See the last year if you doubt me. Employers hire people when they can't meet current demand. When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend, the employers you speak of will be making more money than before.

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

 

[Howard Roark]

we should eliminate low wage jobs anyway. we cannot afford them in a first world economy.

How else are the young and unskilled supposed to gain work experience?

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

It's doing very well right now. Just how much better so you think it can get?

The tax giveaway did little to raise wages. Or create jobs that pay a living wage. If money had actually been given to the middle class as promised, you'd finally see how well the economy could be.

 

[danielpalos]

Capitalism?

Unfilled jobs cost the U.S. economy $160 billion a year

And what happens when the economy is not so robust, is, when Trump is out of office?

The market, albeit volatile, is robust. The economy hasn't changed since the Stimulus initiated a long period of growth. As long as the job creators (those who create demand) have money to spend, the actual economy will do better. Especially if trump is out of office.

It's doing very well right now. Just how much better so you think it can get?

we can make money instead of lose money on public policies.

You need to spin the phrase wheel again. You keep using the wrong ones.

I understand capitalism, unlike the right wing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody hires just because they got a tax cut.

Okay. So what?

When their employees, and millions across the nation have more to spend,

That "extra money" the employees get, reduces the amount of money the employer has.
Now they buy less raw materials, hire fewer workers, produce fewer goods.
That's a recipe for making less money than before.

If you ever took an Econ class, you might sound less confused.

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

I'll give you a little accounting lesson.
I doubt I can dumb it down to your level, but I'll try.

Let's look at Operating Profit

What Does Operating Profit Margin Tell Investors and Business Owners
The operating profit margin informs both business owners and investors about a company's ability to turn a dollar of revenue into a dollar of profit after accounting for all the expenses required to run the business. This profitability metric is calculated by dividing the company's operating income by its total revenue. There are two components that go into calculating operating profit margin: revenue and operating profit.

Revenue is the top line on a company's income statement. Revenue, which is sometimes referred to as net sales, reflects the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services. Revenue refers only to the positive cash flow directly attributable to primary operations.

Operating profit sits further down the income statement and is derived from its predecessor, gross profit. Gross profit is revenue minus all the expenses associated with the production of items for sale, called cost of goods sold (COGS). Since gross profit is a rather simplistic view of a company's profitability, operating profit takes it one step further by subtracting all overhead, administrative and operational expenses from gross profit. Any expense necessary to keep a business running is included, such as rent, utilities, payroll, employee benefits, and insurance premiums.

How Operating Profit Margin Is Calculated
By dividing operating profit by total revenue, the operating profit margin becomes a more refined metric. Operating profit is reported in dollars, whereas its corresponding profit margin is reported as a percentage of each revenue dollar. The formula is as follows:

Read more: What is considered a healthy operating profit margin? | Investopedia What is considered a healthy operating profit margin?

Now let's get specific with Apple.

In fiscal 2017, they had cost of sales (the cost to Apple of the stuff they sell) of $141.048 billion.
They sold it for $229.234 billion. Basically they sold every $1 worth of goods for $1.625. Excellent gross margin. R&D was 11.581 billion and SG&A (includes all the salaries besides manufacturing salaries) of $15.261 billion. Operating income is $61.344 billion. Operating margin, 26.6%.

Now let's pretend they have to pay an extra $3 billion in non-manufacturing salary.
Idiots like you think that's good because now their sales will increase by $3 billion.
As I showed above, every sale of $1.625 means a $1 cost to manufacture.
$3B/1.625 = $1.85 billion increase in Cost Of Sales.

$3B - $1.85B = $1.15B increase in gross margin. Subtract the $3 billion increase in SG&A means
operating income is $59.494 billion / $232.234 net sales = 25.62% Operating margin.

Lower operating income, lower margin.

Let me know if you realize your error yet.

 

[Howard Roark]

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has. It increases his/her sales, thus increasing profits. If you ever took an Econ class, you would understand supply/demand.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring, while arguing that less money doesn't increase hiring.

No business ever buys more raw materials unless they have demand for their product(s)

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

I'll give you a little accounting lesson.
I doubt I can dumb it down to your level, but I'll try.

Let's look at Operating Profit

What Does Operating Profit Margin Tell Investors and Business Owners
The operating profit margin informs both business owners and investors about a company's ability to turn a dollar of revenue into a dollar of profit after accounting for all the expenses required to run the business. This profitability metric is calculated by dividing the company's operating income by its total revenue. There are two components that go into calculating operating profit margin: revenue and operating profit.

Revenue is the top line on a company's income statement. Revenue, which is sometimes referred to as net sales, reflects the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services. Revenue refers only to the positive cash flow directly attributable to primary operations.

Operating profit sits further down the income statement and is derived from its predecessor, gross profit. Gross profit is revenue minus all the expenses associated with the production of items for sale, called cost of goods sold (COGS). Since gross profit is a rather simplistic view of a company's profitability, operating profit takes it one step further by subtracting all overhead, administrative and operational expenses from gross profit. Any expense necessary to keep a business running is included, such as rent, utilities, payroll, employee benefits, and insurance premiums.

How Operating Profit Margin Is Calculated
By dividing operating profit by total revenue, the operating profit margin becomes a more refined metric. Operating profit is reported in dollars, whereas its corresponding profit margin is reported as a percentage of each revenue dollar. The formula is as follows:

Read more: What is considered a healthy operating profit margin? | Investopedia What is considered a healthy operating profit margin?

Now let's get specific with Apple.

View attachment 226035

In fiscal 2017, they had cost of sales (the cost to Apple of the stuff they sell) of $141.048 billion.
They sold it for $229.234 billion. Basically they sold every $1 worth of goods for $1.625. Excellent gross margin. R&D was 11.581 billion and SG&A (includes all the salaries besides manufacturing salaries) of $15.261 billion. Operating income is $61.344 billion. Operating margin, 26.6%.

Now let's pretend they have to pay an extra $3 billion in non-manufacturing salary.
Idiots like you think that's good because now their sales will increase by $3 billion.
As I showed above, every sale of $1.625 means a $1 cost to manufacture.
$3B/1.625 = $1.85 billion increase in Cost Of Sales.

$3B - $1.85B = $1.15B increase in gross margin. Subtract the $3 billion increase in SG&A means
operating income is $59.494 billion / $232.234 net sales = 25.62% Operating margin.

Lower operating income, lower margin.

Let me know if you realize your error yet.

Dumb it down? I think you're pretty dumb when it comes to economics. Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, it doesn't reduce the amount of money the employer has

An employer spends $100,000 a month on salaries. The Federal government mandates
a higher minimum wage. Now the monthly salary expense is $120,000.

That's not a reduction in the amount of money the employer has to spend on other things?

Tell me more!!!

It increases his/her sales

How does spending $20,000 more on salaries increase his/her sales?

thus increasing profits.

If sales increased by $20,000, how much does profit increase?
Show your work.

You would also understand the correlation between a tax cut, and 'increasing the amount of money the employer has'.

Obviously reducing the amount sent to the government increases the amount the employer has.
Who argued otherwise? Where?

You can't argue that more money doesn't increase hiring,

You'd have to be a moron to argue that.
Besides you, who else is making that stupid claim?

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

I'll give you a little accounting lesson.
I doubt I can dumb it down to your level, but I'll try.

Let's look at Operating Profit

What Does Operating Profit Margin Tell Investors and Business Owners
The operating profit margin informs both business owners and investors about a company's ability to turn a dollar of revenue into a dollar of profit after accounting for all the expenses required to run the business. This profitability metric is calculated by dividing the company's operating income by its total revenue. There are two components that go into calculating operating profit margin: revenue and operating profit.

Revenue is the top line on a company's income statement. Revenue, which is sometimes referred to as net sales, reflects the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services. Revenue refers only to the positive cash flow directly attributable to primary operations.

Operating profit sits further down the income statement and is derived from its predecessor, gross profit. Gross profit is revenue minus all the expenses associated with the production of items for sale, called cost of goods sold (COGS). Since gross profit is a rather simplistic view of a company's profitability, operating profit takes it one step further by subtracting all overhead, administrative and operational expenses from gross profit. Any expense necessary to keep a business running is included, such as rent, utilities, payroll, employee benefits, and insurance premiums.

How Operating Profit Margin Is Calculated
By dividing operating profit by total revenue, the operating profit margin becomes a more refined metric. Operating profit is reported in dollars, whereas its corresponding profit margin is reported as a percentage of each revenue dollar. The formula is as follows:

Read more: What is considered a healthy operating profit margin? | Investopedia What is considered a healthy operating profit margin?

Now let's get specific with Apple.

View attachment 226035

In fiscal 2017, they had cost of sales (the cost to Apple of the stuff they sell) of $141.048 billion.
They sold it for $229.234 billion. Basically they sold every $1 worth of goods for $1.625. Excellent gross margin. R&D was 11.581 billion and SG&A (includes all the salaries besides manufacturing salaries) of $15.261 billion. Operating income is $61.344 billion. Operating margin, 26.6%.

Now let's pretend they have to pay an extra $3 billion in non-manufacturing salary.
Idiots like you think that's good because now their sales will increase by $3 billion.
As I showed above, every sale of $1.625 means a $1 cost to manufacture.
$3B/1.625 = $1.85 billion increase in Cost Of Sales.

$3B - $1.85B = $1.15B increase in gross margin. Subtract the $3 billion increase in SG&A means
operating income is $59.494 billion / $232.234 net sales = 25.62% Operating margin.

Lower operating income, lower margin.

Let me know if you realize your error yet.

Dumb it down? I think you're pretty dumb when it comes to economics. Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Dumb it down?

Yes, I tried to simplify it enough that even morons with no accounting knowledge, like you, could understand.
I see I was unable to simplify sufficiently .

Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Why do you feel I ignored revenue?
You see, revenue is net sales.

Try again?

 

[Howard Roark]

I've already explained all of the questions above. Now do your studying, and let me know when you understand this complex issue.

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

I'll give you a little accounting lesson.
I doubt I can dumb it down to your level, but I'll try.

Let's look at Operating Profit

What Does Operating Profit Margin Tell Investors and Business Owners
The operating profit margin informs both business owners and investors about a company's ability to turn a dollar of revenue into a dollar of profit after accounting for all the expenses required to run the business. This profitability metric is calculated by dividing the company's operating income by its total revenue. There are two components that go into calculating operating profit margin: revenue and operating profit.

Revenue is the top line on a company's income statement. Revenue, which is sometimes referred to as net sales, reflects the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services. Revenue refers only to the positive cash flow directly attributable to primary operations.

Operating profit sits further down the income statement and is derived from its predecessor, gross profit. Gross profit is revenue minus all the expenses associated with the production of items for sale, called cost of goods sold (COGS). Since gross profit is a rather simplistic view of a company's profitability, operating profit takes it one step further by subtracting all overhead, administrative and operational expenses from gross profit. Any expense necessary to keep a business running is included, such as rent, utilities, payroll, employee benefits, and insurance premiums.

How Operating Profit Margin Is Calculated
By dividing operating profit by total revenue, the operating profit margin becomes a more refined metric. Operating profit is reported in dollars, whereas its corresponding profit margin is reported as a percentage of each revenue dollar. The formula is as follows:

Read more: What is considered a healthy operating profit margin? | Investopedia What is considered a healthy operating profit margin?

Now let's get specific with Apple.

View attachment 226035

In fiscal 2017, they had cost of sales (the cost to Apple of the stuff they sell) of $141.048 billion.
They sold it for $229.234 billion. Basically they sold every $1 worth of goods for $1.625. Excellent gross margin. R&D was 11.581 billion and SG&A (includes all the salaries besides manufacturing salaries) of $15.261 billion. Operating income is $61.344 billion. Operating margin, 26.6%.

Now let's pretend they have to pay an extra $3 billion in non-manufacturing salary.
Idiots like you think that's good because now their sales will increase by $3 billion.
As I showed above, every sale of $1.625 means a $1 cost to manufacture.
$3B/1.625 = $1.85 billion increase in Cost Of Sales.

$3B - $1.85B = $1.15B increase in gross margin. Subtract the $3 billion increase in SG&A means
operating income is $59.494 billion / $232.234 net sales = 25.62% Operating margin.

Lower operating income, lower margin.

Let me know if you realize your error yet.

Dumb it down? I think you're pretty dumb when it comes to economics. Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Dumb it down?

Yes, I tried to simplify it enough that even morons with no accounting knowledge, like you, could understand.
I see I was unable to simplify sufficiently .

Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Why do you feel I ignored revenue?
You see, revenue is net sales.

Try again?

No need for me to try again. Or at all, for that matter. You lack the necessary foundation for these intricate discussions. I guess we'll find out if higher wages translate to a better economy. Once trump is gone

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, you've made clear your ignorance on the topic.

Looking in the mirror as you post?

I'll give you a little accounting lesson.
I doubt I can dumb it down to your level, but I'll try.

Let's look at Operating Profit

What Does Operating Profit Margin Tell Investors and Business Owners
The operating profit margin informs both business owners and investors about a company's ability to turn a dollar of revenue into a dollar of profit after accounting for all the expenses required to run the business. This profitability metric is calculated by dividing the company's operating income by its total revenue. There are two components that go into calculating operating profit margin: revenue and operating profit.

Revenue is the top line on a company's income statement. Revenue, which is sometimes referred to as net sales, reflects the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services. Revenue refers only to the positive cash flow directly attributable to primary operations.

Operating profit sits further down the income statement and is derived from its predecessor, gross profit. Gross profit is revenue minus all the expenses associated with the production of items for sale, called cost of goods sold (COGS). Since gross profit is a rather simplistic view of a company's profitability, operating profit takes it one step further by subtracting all overhead, administrative and operational expenses from gross profit. Any expense necessary to keep a business running is included, such as rent, utilities, payroll, employee benefits, and insurance premiums.

How Operating Profit Margin Is Calculated
By dividing operating profit by total revenue, the operating profit margin becomes a more refined metric. Operating profit is reported in dollars, whereas its corresponding profit margin is reported as a percentage of each revenue dollar. The formula is as follows:

Read more: What is considered a healthy operating profit margin? | Investopedia What is considered a healthy operating profit margin?

Now let's get specific with Apple.

View attachment 226035

In fiscal 2017, they had cost of sales (the cost to Apple of the stuff they sell) of $141.048 billion.
They sold it for $229.234 billion. Basically they sold every $1 worth of goods for $1.625. Excellent gross margin. R&D was 11.581 billion and SG&A (includes all the salaries besides manufacturing salaries) of $15.261 billion. Operating income is $61.344 billion. Operating margin, 26.6%.

Now let's pretend they have to pay an extra $3 billion in non-manufacturing salary.
Idiots like you think that's good because now their sales will increase by $3 billion.
As I showed above, every sale of $1.625 means a $1 cost to manufacture.
$3B/1.625 = $1.85 billion increase in Cost Of Sales.

$3B - $1.85B = $1.15B increase in gross margin. Subtract the $3 billion increase in SG&A means
operating income is $59.494 billion / $232.234 net sales = 25.62% Operating margin.

Lower operating income, lower margin.

Let me know if you realize your error yet.

Dumb it down? I think you're pretty dumb when it comes to economics. Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Dumb it down?

Yes, I tried to simplify it enough that even morons with no accounting knowledge, like you, could understand.
I see I was unable to simplify sufficiently .

Read the paragraph you ignored...Revenue.

Why do you feel I ignored revenue?
You see, revenue is net sales.

Try again?

No need for me to try again. Or at all, for that matter. You lack the necessary foundation for these intricate discussions. I guess we'll find out if higher wages translate to a better economy. Once trump is gone

No need for me to try again

Obviously. Because only idiots think adding $1 million in expenses can be offset by
increasing sales by $1 million. Idiot.