Hero!

Thanks. I didn't even bother, knowing that would frustrate me

That "flaw" you pointed out is the point of the infographic. It is literally just to visualize the proportion of revenue paid to employees. No one is saying that the rest of the revenue is straight up profit, I cannot even imagine how you came to that conclusion.

The revenue vs profit aspect is also difficult to measure. An example as to why is Amazon claimed it made no profit for years, because it reinvested all of the revenue it gained in addition to revenue that paid for operating costs. Are you going to believe Amazon's claim? Most people would argue they did profit, and that reinvestment is still profiting, but that's not how things are often measured.

Even profit is manipulated and funnelled back into "growth".

And we can pretty much double the numbers by what it actually costs to employ someone vs. what they are paid.

Want nice things like healthcare and other benefits, worker's comp, unemployment insurance and the like?

Worked at a small payroll firm for 5-years. I was the IT manager, so not like I'm an expert, but I had a lot of questions and worked closely with payroll and accounting. Very eye opening.

If you get paid $15/hr., you probably cost the company $26-29/hr. And we had small clients like churches, restaurants, convenience stores, thrift shops, places paying shit wages and shit benefits. I make ~$80K with stunning benefits, so I figure my company's actual cost to keep my ass in the seat is maybe $200K?

Says right at the top of the chart. The 3 data points are 2022 revenue, revenue per second, and average salary.

I checked for Walmart. It is revenue.

I don't think it says profit anywhere? It says 2022 revenue in the legend for the companies, and the annual personal salary is revenue too because it needs to be spent on living expenses.

That's fine? Payroll is an expense, it does come out of revenue. Profit is what's left over after they pay everyone else.

Hey, maybe you would know… why are pharmacies/pharmacists being sued for the opioid crisis? I could understand suing pharmacies back in the day when pharmacists were able to dispense meds without a Dr’s Rx, but when Congress stripped pharmacists of basically all power except strictly following a written script in the early 80s as part of the war on drugs, it seems like modern pharmacies have two options with an opioid Rx. Do their jobs and fill it, or do their jobs and don’t fill it. And the filling it job seems like the more responsible choice. I am a lawyer and I really don’t understand the theory of recovery and I enjoy talking about it more than reading up on it. Is it just that the pharmacies have deep pockets?

Would need to make sure to exclude costs like executive "compensation", stock buy backs, or any other methods used to artificially decrease profits to avoid taxes.

Since most or even all of them are publicly traded companies it isn't that difficult to find out.

Walmart had a net income of 14 billion, they have roughly 2.1 million employees, that leaves each employee with an additional 6.6k for this year or roughly an additional 550 a month.

Doesn't sound a lot but that can be done without impacting any other business practices. And for some of the employees overseas that might be doubling their salaries.

It really depends on how much it costs them to do business. Payroll is only a part of the cost to do business. Companies like Walmart have massive real estate holdings which likely take a significant chunk of their revenue to pay off.

Here you go, the original sauce: https://llcattorney.com/business-info/us-companies-salaries-vs-revenue

Thats more then jpeg compression right there

Profits aren't spent on salaries. Salaries one of the things deducted from revenue to determine profits.

I seriously doubt that these are profits. These are revenue.