Your wages are not profit by any definition I've seen.
You arrived at an employment contract with your employer. The contract is an exchange of value: your labor for some of their money.
If you are being paid more than the price your employer could otherwise obtain your labor for, then I suppose you could call some of that profit. But that is rather unlikely. Your employer is buying your labor, and is almost certainly paying you less than the value (to them) of whatever it is you do for them.
If the owners overlap with the employees, then what part of the revenue is divided between salary, benefits and profit is often a tax-optimization question, which I think is the point in the GP. A single-person company paying themselves 200k in yearly wages or 100k in wages and 100k in dividends from 200k in revenue can look like a “non-profit” or a high-margin company with the same effect for the owner.
> I've been running an open source, libre project for closing in on 24 years now, and generating revenue from it for about 17 years. There's never been any "profit", but there has been revenue.
I regard profit as what's left of the revenue after you pay the people who work on the project and any expenses, which is the way most corporations and accountants would view it.
It's certainly profitable to me to be employed, I get money. It's one way you can "profit" from an activity. You can also profit via other things, but it's a wider meaning of "profit" than the financial one.
You arrived at an employment contract with your employer. The contract is an exchange of value: your labor for some of their money.
If you are being paid more than the price your employer could otherwise obtain your labor for, then I suppose you could call some of that profit. But that is rather unlikely. Your employer is buying your labor, and is almost certainly paying you less than the value (to them) of whatever it is you do for them.