More Stuff
Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi
- Hansontoons
- Posts: 1007
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:22 pm
- Location: Houston, TX
Re: More Stuff
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.
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.
Re: More Stuff
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
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
- jwhouk
- Posts: 6053
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:58 am
- Location: The Valley of the Sun, Arizona
- Contact:
Re: More Stuff
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
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
Re: More Stuff
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.
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: More Stuff
Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: More Stuff
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.
Re: More Stuff
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.AnotherFairportfan wrote:Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
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
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
- GlytchMeister
- Posts: 3734
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
- Location: Central Illinois
- Contact:
Re: More Stuff
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*
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!
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!
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: More Stuff
Boring Sunday
More cat pics.
Rocket performs EBM (Essential Butt Maintenance).

While Mommy naps in the bedroom, Junior naps in her recliner.

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

While Mommy naps in the bedroom, Junior naps in her recliner.

Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: More Stuff
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?).Atomic wrote: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.AnotherFairportfan wrote:Tell that to the supermarket chains, all of which (last i heard) were running on less than 5% margin.Alkarii wrote:Yeah, usually something isn't considered profitable if you aren't making 60% profits on it.
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?
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: More Stuff
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.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?).

Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
- Jabberwonky
- Posts: 2963
- Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:11 am
- Location: Houston, Texas
Re: More Stuff
Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
"The price of perfection is prohibitive." - Anonymous
Re: More Stuff
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.Jabberwonky wrote:Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?).
"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
And see that life is beautiful."
- Sgt. Howard
- Posts: 3384
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:54 pm
- Location: Malott, Washington
Re: More Stuff
... did you have a derringer in your pocket at the time?Atomic wrote: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.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?).
Rule 17 of the Bombay Golf Course- "You shall play the ball where the monkey drops it,"
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.
I speak fluent Limrick-
the Old Sgt.
-
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:34 pm
- Location: Pennsylbama, between Philly and Pittsburgh
Re: More Stuff
Yup. And that's why I use the proper term: real estate agent.AnotherFairportfan wrote:BTW: did you know "realtor®" is a trademarked term - and should, properly, be capitalised?
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.
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: More Stuff
It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.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.Jabberwonky wrote:Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?AnotherFairportfan wrote: ...(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.
Re: More Stuff
ahhh...good to know.AnotherFairportfan wrote:It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.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.Jabberwonky wrote:Who in the world owns the trademark for Realtor? An associated conglomeration of some sort?

"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
And see that life is beautiful."
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: More Stuff
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.)Julie wrote:ahhh...good to know.AnotherFairportfan wrote:It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.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.

Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: More Stuff
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.AnotherFairportfan wrote: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.)Julie wrote:ahhh...good to know.AnotherFairportfan wrote:It is a trademark/service mark owned by the National Association of Realtors, first registered in 1949 and 1950.

"Just open your eyes
And see that life is beautiful."
And see that life is beautiful."
Re: More Stuff
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.