It just says the same thing regardless of what I enter:

1 million annual:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $1.049.283. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

3 million annual:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $3.049.283. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

1 dollar per year:

> If you got to keep your fair share of the profit Amazon.com reported, $77.7B, your salary would be $49.284. You helped Amazon.com make enough to pay you $49.283 more.

Dividing profits by employee count and calling this "fair share" is ludicrous. It exhibits a childish understanding of the world and the economy. If you believe that you're cheated, and you are creating significantly more value than you're paid, start your own single-person company and sell your services to others.

The truth is that by working for a company, you get access to environment that makes you much more productive than you'd otherwise be on your own. You also are not on the hook for most of the risks. It is patently unfair, and extremely short-sighted, to claim that investors deserve no compensation for their investment.

I recently learned that the CEO of the holding company that owns my employer made several hundred million dollars last year...while my coworkers and I are told to stop asking for raises (I've had approximately ONE since 2020 and the cost of living has never stopped increasing).

Pain.

I thought the labor theory of value wasn't much of a thing any more?

Don't these guys all, or mostly all, maintain massive shadow workforces of employees who do all of the work of employees but are called contractors, and so get poor benefits packages and no stock and inflate the earnings of the companies?

Not even talking about the actual content on the website, OP - why are all of your comments here LLM-generated?

It's extremely clear you're not writing those yourself, which makes the whole thing very disingenuous if you can't engage with others in your own language.

I've worked for top... 10? Silicon Valley companies that you most definitely know. Two major ones. I would sometimes do napkin math, like once a year, to see if I was actually worth my salary. I usually was way ahead but when I wasnt sure I pivoted, just out of pride really. I always had this image of me working for startups where every dollar mattered even though I wasn't.

Don't know why you got flagged into oblivion, but it's a noble effort. Some of the numbers you'll see in tech companies should seriously give one pause and thinking not only about where that income does come from, but also how the business works. I've personally left workplaces on such realizations.

On second thought, that might be why you attracted flags. Can't be getting the help having thoughts above their station here it seems. Keep up the good work.

I built the worker-owned co-op directory that was on here a couple weeks ago (https://workerowned.info). This is the other side of that coin: what do workers actually generate for owners at big public companies?

You type in your company and your salary. It pulls net income and headcount from SEC 10-K filings and shows what each employee's equal share of the profit would be, and what your salary would look like with it added on.

I know equal-split is a simplification, not a compensation model. It ignores capex, R&D, risk-adjusted returns, and a lot else. But "Walmart made $22 billion" is abstract. "$10,000 per employee" is not. That's the whole point.

You can also browse all ~940 companies ranked by profit per employee (https://yourfairshare.info/browse), or by industry (https://yourfairshare.info/industry) which breaks out buybacks and dividends per worker alongside it.

Static site, no accounts, no tracking. All from SEC filings.

The site is called "Your Fair Share," which is provocative, I know. But the point isn't to tell you what your fair share is. It's to give you a simple calculation that makes you start wondering what it should be. That's a conversation worth having, even if reasonable people will land in very different places.

Some caveats since this crowd will rightly push on them:

1. Net income is after taxes, interest, and a lot of accounting choices. It's not "profit the company hid from workers." It's what they reported to the SEC after everything else.

2. Equal split is a hypothetical that puts the number on a per-person scale. Nothing more.

3. Capital-intensive industries (airlines, utilities, manufacturing) look less dramatic because margins are thin relative to headcount. Most interesting for high-margin businesses.

4. I've verified the top ~200 companies against primary sources (10-K filings, press releases, EDGAR XBRL). The long tail has gaps. There's a data feedback link on every result.

So all companies should just fully divide their profits, totally equally, among employees, so shareholders get nothing. So why would anyone ever invest in companies in the first place? Why would employees have an incentive to work hard if they all get an equal share of profits.

Look, I wholly agree that there are many things that need fixing in the American version of capitalism, but lord, this ain't it.