[WalterBright]

If he did conflate "profit" with "gross revenue", I was explaining that indeed he was getting a share of it. And frankly it is impossible to have any sensible discussion about business and be confused about what profits are - the only definition that has meaning is the accounting definition.

It's like discussing newtonian mechanics and confusing momentum with energy.

[rileymat2]

People routinely use a more loose definition of the word productively, for instance the term "profit sharing" is commonly understood. But as you point out, unless it is through dividends from stock grants/options, whatever is shared with the employee no longer is profit.

[ACow_Adonis]

That's just objectively false.

Other fields use the words profit, not just accountants. Economists and philosophers, at the very least, have a claim to it too, and they do not in any way conflate the meaning with the accounting definition. Indeed, we would argue that the accounting definition is the one that is conflated with the thing we actually care about (which is why the phrase "paper profits" even exists).

And its also quite clear he didn't "conflate" the meaning, but used it exactly as intended.

Most people, I'm assuming, can quite clearly see that he captures the idea that surplus value/revenue, of which the resulting wages are a non-deterministic and variable part to some degree. That upper management of the firm take a percentage of this slice of the pie, whilst lower down labour also gets a slice, and that the notional "social justification" for why upper-management gets a greater slice is being white-anted away as the lower downs are supposed to take on their responsibilities without commensurate compensation.

[WalterBright]

> Other fields use the words profit, not just accountants.

Sure, but we're talking about accounting here when discussing business profits. People are free to make up their own definitions of things, but that makes sensible discussion impossible.

[throwawayjava]

It really doesn't. The majority of commenters here understood my original meaning, and this entire thread about the definition of profit isn't even relevant to the point I was actually making.

Being so fickle about definitions that you miss the broader message, however, does make sensible discussion impossible.

[WalterBright]

Let me try another way. P = profits, R = revenue, S = salary, E = expenses:

    P = R - S - E

Every dollar you get in salary is a 1:1 drop in profits. Any bonus B you get,

    P = R - (S + B) - E

is the same. You might expect from this, then, that if you're offered a S+B package, the S would be lower than what you'd get with a pure S offer, by the expected amount of B. And you'd be right. I've been on both sides of the negotiating table, and this is how it works.

[throwawayjava]

> Let me try another way

Please... I understand your pedantry, and I don't care. This is a silly conversation.

Do you have any thoughts about the role of engineers in a firm and how the existence of firms relates to the article's thesis? That's a much more interesting and relevant topic for discussion than the fact that words sometimes have more than one definition.

So if not, let's kill this thread. I used the word "profit" in a way different from how it's used in Accounting 101. For that I am profoundly and eternally sorry, but not sorry enough to continue an off-topic and unenlightening conversation :-)