Imagine you're the CEO of a publicly traded corporation that is legally required to maximize profits for shareholders. Do you
A) choose an option that will earn less gross profit or
B) choose the option that will earn more?
If you chose "A" because you're a good person and not a greedy capitalist, congratulations. You've just been fired as CEO and the major shareholders just picked a replacement who will choose the second option.
Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that's an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they'll do it. What part of this is confusing?
The guild then compared these costs to companies’ annual revenues and calculated the percentage that these costs would represent compared to those profits. The costs would account for 0.091 percent of Disney’s revenue, 0.214 of Netflix’s, 0.108 percent of Warner Bros. Discovery’s, 0.148 percent of Paramount Global’s, 0.028 percent of NBC Universal’s and 0.006 percent of Amazon’s, the WGA claims.
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
one of their large investors saying "hey, hike prices" justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
They will still have that growth. Just a fraction of a percent less. And they are using that to justify raising their prices.
Imagine you're the CEO of a publicly traded corporation that is legally required to maximize profits for shareholders. Do you
A) choose an option that will earn less gross profit or
B) choose the option that will earn more?
If you chose "A" because you're a good person and not a greedy capitalist, congratulations. You've just been fired as CEO and the major shareholders just picked a replacement who will choose the second option.
Revenue growth down from 3% to 2% is significant, especially considering that's an even bigger hit to growth in profits. They want to make their investors happy, they have a perfectly reasonable PR cover to raise their prices by a few dollars a month, so they'll do it. What part of this is confusing?
Again, less than 1%. Read the article.
Here, I'll even paste the relevant part:
Are you really going to claim that 0.214% less revenue justifies a price hike?
one of their large investors saying "hey, hike prices" justifies a price hike. A profit reduction equal to .214% of revenue (and other concessions that could hurt the company in other ways) is far more than the amount of justification they need.
I guess your definition of 'justified' is much more capitalistic than mine.
Are you new to the idea of corporations?
Does "corporation does something that isn't illegal" equal "justifiable?"
does "corporation does something @flyingsquid would prefer it didn't do" equal "unjustifiable?"
Am I the only one who would prefer Netflix not raise its prices? Because I'm pretty sure I'm not.
no, but you're the only one who thinks that it's a crime against humanity
When did I say it was a crime against humanity or even imply such a thing?
Please quote me.
Unless that's a lie, of course.
Was it a lie?