New York Times has a 89.9% increase in net income and employs 3560 people while Exxon/Mobil losses 50% in net income and employs 75,300 people
I am not a CPA or even an accountant so my interpretation of these numbers might be wrong but I don’t think so. You check them out for yourself if you have any doubt.
According to the New York Times 2015 Annual Report their revenues in 2015 were $1.58B with a Net Income of $63.2M (~4%), while employing 3560 full time equivalent employees. Their 2014 revenue was $1.59B with a Net Income of $33.3 (~2.1%), while employing 3588 full time equivalent employees. Hence, on essentially flat revenue they gained 89.9% in Net Income between 2014 and 2015, yet lost 28 full time equivalent employees
According to Exxon/Mobil’s 2015 Financial statement their revenues in 2015 were $259.5B with a Net Income of $16.2M (~0.01%), while employing 73,500 regular employees. Their 2014 revenue was $394.1B with a Net Income of $32.5M (~0.01%), while employing 75,300 employees.
And who paid what taxes? Oh, Exxon/Mobil probably paid zero. Well not actually; in 2015 Exxon/Mobil paid $57.9B in taxes while the New York Times paid $33.9M
So who are the evil capitalist; Exxon/Mobil and the New York Times? Does a 90% increase the Net Income in one year sound like a windfall profit to you?