Originally Posted by
Insidious
But let's look at wages here. There's a few words I see around a lot to bash our financial model with, where, to paraphrase, people will say "revenue has grown with wages, so we're actually not spending" - since 2015, revenues have gone up approximately 69% - but our wages have gone up closer to 95%, so whilst revenues certainly help, the idea that they are "covering" our wages in totality is nonsense.
Your point only holds true if the two values are the same to begin with:
Original revenue £1,000,000
Original wages £ 300,000
Increase in revenue 69%
Increase in wages 95%
New revenue £1,690,000
New wages £585,000
Increase in revenue £690,000
Increase in wages £285,000
In this example, the increase in revenue comfortably covers the increase in wages.
Without looking, I don't know what the original revenue and figures are, but I'd be astounded if the increased revenue didn't cover the increase in wages (in fact wages would need to be in excess of 86% of total revenue for this to be the case.
You are essentially an oxygen thief.
Bookmarks