Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Profit is a GREAT thing.

Posted 6 years ago on May 28, 2012, 10:57 p.m. EST by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do YOU work for free?



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 6 years ago

If a corporation moves its factory overseas to gain sweatshop labor in order to increase profits. No. I woulds say that is putting profit before people and that is not great.

or....ever watch a disaster movie where the guy runs back in the burning building to get his treasure and you are yelling at him - no, no, don't do it --- then he catches on fire...and you say to yourself while he burns...what a greedy bastard.

Profit is gaining an advantage or benefit. How people seek to gain said advantage or benefit can be either good or bad depending on a lot of things.

Exploitation of other people to gain advantage or benefit is never going to be considered GREAT no matter what superfluous connections you make between profit and greatness.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Most people would agree that high unemployment is a bad thing.

And spending/working in a way that leads to high profits is counterproductive in reducing unemployment.

If work conservation was adopted, people could compete in a way that would be much less likely to lead to unemployment.

I realize the author of this thread probably does not care about fixing unemployment, but thought it was worth mentioning.

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 6 years ago

No good. That plan would make our labor MORE expensive in a very competitive global economy. We're already too expensive. That's why everything is moving overseas... or didn't you get the memo?

The more "legislative" changes you make to centrally control the economy, the more unintended consequences (and problems) you create. Let the free market rule.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

You can't move health care, or retail work, etc etc. overseas. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/opinion/brooks-the-two-economies.html

Have you noticed that corporate profits are extremely high? We can definitely afford higher labor costs. But I'm glad you admit that costs would go up :P... even if you think that would be a bad thing.

Even for small businesses, from the same survey which showed that "lack of demand" is the major problem for businesses in this recession (other recessions have been different), if you read the full report only 4% of small businesses think that "Cost of Labor" is the single most important problem. Survey low 2%, survey high 9%. The top three concerns at the moment are Poor sales (19%, recent spike), Govt regulations and red tape (20%, relatively constant), and Taxes (18%, relatively constant).

Also, people choosing to work less is, well... basically the definition of a free market leading to greater efficiency.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

No, but non-profit is a great thing as well. There is a need for both in our society.

[-] -1 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 6 years ago

In certain areas, yes. But if you overrun the economy with non-profit, there's no incentive to perform. Everyone just does the minimum to get by. That doesn't work well in a global economy.

Profit is a motivator, whether you like it or not. If a company isn't profitable, I sell my stock and take it somewhere else that gives me a profit and the non-profit ends up going away for lack of capital.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

That is a terrible argument.

Profit is important for a company because it allows it to invest in more ways to support the business (and recently, companies have been paying out at least as much in dividends/share repurchases as they have had in profit). Whether you sell your stocks is irrelevant. You are, after all, not working for the business so it doesn't matter if you feel "motivated".

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 6 years ago

I like profit, but I don't think the economy should be overrun by it either.

[-] -2 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 6 years ago

No, but I'm not greedy! I just want someone else to pay for my stuff!

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

I am not greedy either. i just wish the rich would stop fucking up the economy and leaving everyone else with the bill.

[-] 1 points by JusticeForTrayvon (34) 6 years ago

Right, like the national debt! They finance their corporate welfare joyrides like the auto fail-outs and goldman sachs and leave the next generation with the disaster!

[-] -2 points by peacup (-44) from Murray, KY 6 years ago

Sorry, but the rich are paying MOST of the taxes. 47% of households aren't paying any federal income tax. Maybe it's time for half the country to stop acting like freeloaders and pay something also.

We weren't this progressive in taxation even under Clinton.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 6 years ago

sure i don't mind paying taxes. so if you believe it is such an imperative for me to pay taxes then come down here and tell my employer to pay me enough so I'm above the poverty line. Until then you are just blowing smoke with your presumptions. The free loaders are those who pay slave wages, make hella profits then bitch because they are the only ones left to pay the taxes.

[-] 1 points by elf3 (3900) 6 years ago

And where do welfare dollars end up ? Hmm maybe back in the hands of greedy corporations? Aww - lay off the entire economy - put them on welfare - we'll just charge you the tab so we can stay in business peacup ... what are you going to do about it - it's just business! Supply and demand (you supply, we demand) It's working for Wallstreet - is it working for you? What is keeping Wall Street afloat after they've laid off all the consumers (answer is you peacup - you are) - and you'll never see welfare change, why because big monopolies are being bailed out with it in the name of helping the poor. But you know what really helps the poor? Jobs in this country.

[-] 1 points by Misaki (893) 6 years ago

Bad argument. If rich people have most of the money (due to ownership of most financial assets) then it only makes sense that they pay most of the taxes.

However, when including corporate tax rates, the top 1% do lose 30% of their income to federal taxes compared to the national average of 20% so you're not completely wrong.

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007. October 2011. Figure 18. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Now everyone go vote in support of the suggestion linked above.