What comes first, ethics or profit?

What comes first?

  • Profit

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • Ethics

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Total voters
    17
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
panhead said:
Why were you not working at 14 yrs old ?
Click to expand...
Why would my parents force me to work some shitty job at 14 ? I did have a paper route and did some janitorial work at the church, but nothing like what you claim.
Why were you forced to work some shitty job whilst getting underpaid ? Why did your parents allow this ?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
If my salary was included in the salary expense when calculating profit or loss, then a profit of $0.01 is just fine. If it is not, then I would be running a business for a salary of $0.01, and I could do scrapping soda cans. As others have said, one does not simply open business for charity. But if I'm paying myself a comfortable wage and can provide my employees with livable wages as well, I'm all for it, no need for me to be greedy.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
The thread asks a question that is suggestive of a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...
Ships turn cow butter shoe feet. Some lard needs fish roof dinner time.

In no way is the OP suggestive of a false dichotomy; it appears you are misusing the term. How is a business you own and the wage you pay your employees of that business mutually exclusive?
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
tightpockt said:
Profile is measurable. Ethics are subjective. This question is a little silly being as profit is the #1 priority for a business, it's the whole reason they're 'in business'. Pada seems to think that a business is responsible for its employees and their quality of life. Failing that he thinks that the government is responsible for your quality of life. It comes across as very 'give me, give me, give me' without offering anything in return. A business is not your parents. They don't feel responsible for your well being.
I maintain that the only person responsible for your finances is the individual.
Click to expand...
I disagree on several points here.

First, ethics can be both qualitative and quantitative, as can profit. It's a stretch to imagine but it can be done.
It's true, business is for profit (unless you are a 501c) and therefore the number one priority of the business is to make a profit. But understanding what "profit" means in business is key to this point. Profit is the money left over after you've paid all your expenses and accounts payable (of NNN). And therefore if you've included your own salary in salary expense, a profit of $0.01 is feasibly, "ok".

Second, I'm not sure how you interpret the question posed as meaning to allude that Pada feels that businesses are responsible for the quality of life of their employees. But lets examine this for a moment. Paying employees a living wage ensures the success of your business as well as improve the quality of life of the employee. If the your business can afford it, paying your employees a living wage ensures they have the means to purchase goods and services that other businesses provide, and the employees of those businesses in turn have the means to purchase goods and/or services your business provides. I'm really surprised this concept falls short on many people.

And finally, some people are not cut out to be go getter business owners, but are quite capable of making your business successful, why should they be considered second class to your business? Without them, you'd have no business. Again, another concept that falls short on many.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
In the example in the OP, $.01 is your profit, so you're essentially breaking even while remaining ethical

Are you saying you believe it's better to turn a $5.00 profit instead even though your employees require government assistance to pay their bills?
Click to expand...
I would need government assistance to pay my bills
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
no but certainly working a full-time job, you would expect at the very least to eat and have a roof over your head..not including utilities of course..that would be extra.

#$290bites
Click to expand...
That's the problem, you think all "full time" jobs deserve a certain level of pay.

You know what happens in places utilising unskilled labour get a "mandate" like that?

They fire the full timer and hire two part timers on 18.5 hours each.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Ships turn cow butter shoe feet. Some lard needs fish roof dinner time.

In no way is the OP suggestive of a false dichotomy; it appears you are misusing the term. How is a business you own and the wage you pay your employees of that business mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...
The question was which comes first, ethics or profit? It implies one or the other comes first, when it could be both or neither, rather than one or the other.

Reindeer, stovetop, nipple, radial tire, glue sniffer
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
That's the problem, you think all "full time" jobs deserve a certain level of pay.

You know what happens in places utilising unskilled labour get a "mandate" like that?

They fire the full timer and hire two part timers on 18.5 hours each.
Click to expand...
dude, that's been so done here, haven't you been listening to me?..even when i was still in the biz..starting in 2000, i noticed the trend for part-timers only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top