[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 :-)