Some of it goes to providing jobs to those same middle class people.
Some of it goes to providing jobs to those same middle class people.
http://www.luxottica.com/en/record-2017-net-profits-and-free...
Using a monopolistic position to overcharge doesn't generate more jobs, just profits.
I'm genuinely asking as I'm to busy/lazy to look it.
I looked at their 2017 financials, and they have revenue/ expenses broken out for many many brands and regions. There are huge variations in margins due to what it seems like to be growth expenses. Some of what i'd think to be more mature lines at first glance to have crazy good margins.
What is being claimed is that the majority of those employees are not seeing an increased benefit (wages) proportional to the increased profits of the company they work for, whereas shareholders and executives do.
That isn't an argument for not breaking up a monopoly. Only an argument that the market may be big enough to support actual competition.
Why? Because the market is fragmenting to smaller operations who employ more people per unit of beer produced.
You can argue that from both sides, that it's less efficient vs generates more jobs, of course.
If it were multiple competing companies, the same output would probably require MORE employees. One of the ways it is so profitable is to implement economies of scale not possible in a less monolithic industry.
You are failing to see that extractive business models such as monopolies do not add value, they extract value and concentrate it in the hands of the execs/owners. This removes capital from the socio-economic system/society and reduces the capabilities of the whole system to grow (the occasional purchase of a yacht does not rebalance things).
We perceive this to be unfair and wonder if we should risk reorganizing society a bit to remedy this.
Is there any data to show that these excessive eyewear profits are being used to create new jobs?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window