More Stuff

All off topic conversation held here. Have fun and play nice. =)

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

User avatar
Hansontoons
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:22 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: More Stuff

Post by Hansontoons »

Perhaps the oil co. suit was a bit insensitive.

But do you begrudge profits by tech companies (Apple?) and soft drink companies (more sugar, please).

Whether one tolerates, is indifferent to, or despises big oil, it's here and now and firmly entrenched in modern society.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: More Stuff

Post by Atomic »

Ok -- a quick check of Exxon showed quarterly revenue ending June 30, 2015 of 335.25B. Let's make that an even 1,200B for the year. 4B profit is 1/3% of sales -- not even a half penny on the dollar. It looks big, but on a Trillion dollar revenue stream, it's not much at all. That's the large numbers illusion -- quantity vs proportion. By quantity, it's huge. By proportion, it's miniscule.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
jwhouk
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:58 am
Location: The Valley of the Sun, Arizona
Contact:

Re: More Stuff

Post by jwhouk »

When you consider how many people work for Exxon/Esso, split that "profit" and it wouldn't amount to much.
"Character is what you are in the dark." - D.L. Moody
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
Alkarii
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by Alkarii »

Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
There is no such thing as a science experiment gone wrong.
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Alkarii
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by Alkarii »

Really? That's pretty slim. But then, I think that 60% percent is supposed to be the difference in the selling price of something and the manufacturing cost, although there are certain things where that isn't feasible. I imagine commodities would be in that category.
There is no such thing as a science experiment gone wrong.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: More Stuff

Post by Atomic »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.
Supermarkets make their money on turnover. If you can only sell a product once, you need a big markup to make it profitable. If you turn over your whole inventory 10 times a year, each slim markup adds up.

The realtor can only sell a building once. The grocer sells out bananas every week. The building that doesn't sell just sits and costs money for debt service, utilities (don't let the pipes freeze) and other maintenance. The overripe leftover bananas are tossed. So: $20K profit on a building or 5c profit on bananas x 1,000 x 52 weeks?
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3734
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: More Stuff

Post by GlytchMeister »

Supermarkets compete with prices... Walmart is all about "saving the customer money." The supermarkets might have started out with a wider profit margin, but low price competition set in, forcing prices down... And thereby forcing profit margins down. Now, all those companies are running on as little profit as possible to stay competitive. That's why they hate shoplifters, and try not to waste anything.

At least, that's my guess. *shrug*
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Boring Sunday

More cat pics.
 
Rocket performs EBM (Essential Butt Maintenance).
 
Image

While Mommy naps in the bedroom, Junior naps in her recliner.
 
Image
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Atomic wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.
Supermarkets make their money on turnover. If you can only sell a product once, you need a big markup to make it profitable. If you turn over your whole inventory 10 times a year, each slim markup adds up.

The realtor can only sell a building once. The grocer sells out bananas every week. The building that doesn't sell just sits and costs money for debt service, utilities (don't let the pipes freeze) and other maintenance. The overripe leftover bananas are tossed. So: $20K profit on a building or 5c profit on bananas x 1,000 x 52 weeks?
Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: More Stuff

Post by Atomic »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Indeed! And I'll be sure to xerox this message as I daub my nose with a kleenex and take some asprin. I didn't wear my galoshes in the rain, so I caught a cold. Even my jacket zipper was open, so I got soaked! Serves me right.

;)
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
Jabberwonky
Posts: 2963
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:11 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: More Stuff

Post by Jabberwonky »

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?
"The price of perfection is prohibitive." - Anonymous
User avatar
Julie
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: More Stuff

Post by Julie »

Jabberwonky wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?
Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
User avatar
Sgt. Howard
Posts: 3384
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:54 pm
Location: Malott, Washington

Re: More Stuff

Post by Sgt. Howard »

Atomic wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:Oil companies fit the supermarket model better than the realtor one. (BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Indeed! And I'll be sure to xerox this message as I daub my nose with a kleenex and take some asprin. I didn't wear my galoshes in the rain, so I caught a cold. Even my jacket zipper was open, so I got soaked! Serves me right.

;)
... did you have a derringer in your pocket at the time?
Rule 17 of the Bombay Golf Course- "You shall play the ball where the monkey drops it,"
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.
Typeminer
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:34 pm
Location: Pennsylbama, between Philly and Pittsburgh

Re: More Stuff

Post by Typeminer »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?
Yup. And that's why I use the proper term: real estate agent.

I've spent about 30 years fighting to keep research and technical copy from looking like advertising copy.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the linchpin of civilization.
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Julie wrote:
Jabberwonky wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?
Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.
It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Julie
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: More Stuff

Post by Julie »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Julie wrote:
Jabberwonky wrote:Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?
Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.
It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.
ahhh...good to know. :)
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Julie wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Julie wrote: Actually, I don't think it's a "trademark", but it is a specifically registered term...kind of like CFP (certified financial planner)...and the industry put that registration/regulation in place to prevent just anyone from being able to call themselves a Realtor just because they show you a few houses.
It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.
ahhh...good to know. :)
I looked it up on Wikipedia - it's not like i have all that info in my head. (Moe than a lot of people, which is why my girlfriend and i used to be deadly at Trivial Pursuit, but not ALL there is.)

Image
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Julie
Posts: 1607
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:30 pm
Location: Dallas, Texas

Re: More Stuff

Post by Julie »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Julie wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.
ahhh...good to know. :)
I looked it up on Wikipedia - it's not like i have all that info in my head. (Moe than a lot of people, which is why my girlfriend and i used to be deadly at Trivial Pursuit, but not ALL there is.)

Image
Yeah...but I'm usually too lazy to go hunting through Wikipedia these days...unless it's really "need to know" information, at which point I'll go all out in my research. :P
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
Alkarii
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:02 pm

Re: More Stuff

Post by Alkarii »

Had a flat tire last night. What sucks is that I don't have enough to get a new one and still make my car payment on time. My next payday is the 2nd, the day after the payment is due. But I may have enough to get a used one that would last a couple weeks.
There is no such thing as a science experiment gone wrong.
Post Reply