Profit

[P. G. Tipps]

All businesses or charities have to either make a profit or have a rich sugar-daddy or enough people willing to put money in.

Quite ...

Those who are able to work despite making a 'financial loss' are a very privileged minority indeed.

The great majority of us are clearly not as lucky as Mr GongGong!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Those who are able to work despite making a 'financial loss' are a very privileged minority indeed.
The great majority of us are clearly not as lucky as Mr GongGong!

This may be the case - but does that invalidate MrGG's statement?

[ardcarp]

I'm assuming no more than commercial businesses are primarily concerned with making profit. Your high street barber is in it to make a profit - he is not a social service, he is a commercial businessman.

Agreed, one has to break even to survive. But where has the pre-Thatcher idealism gone...i.e. Nurses that nurse because they like nursing, potters that pot because....well you get my drift.

[teamsaint]

Agreed, one has to break even to survive. But where has the pre-Thatcher idealism gone...i.e. Nurses that nurse because they like nursing, potters that pot because....well you get my drift.

Plenty of folk doing what they do because they enjoy what they do. Increasingly so, I would tentatively suggest.

Pressures in certain occupations have increased so much over time that people increasingly want to get up the ladder, or out. ( look at the churn in new teachers for example).

[Richard Barrett]

Making a profit is one of the reasons people have businesses, it's not the only one.
Some of us do some things for a financial "loss" because we regard other things as a "gain".

Yes, but I think that would put "us" outside the general definition of "commercial businesses". Whether it's a desirable state of affairs for the profit motive to be at the back of the work most people do (although of course most people only see a small proportion of that profit themselves) is another question. Personally I, and I'm sure you too, think the world would be a better place the more time people spent doing helpful/productive/life-enhancing things without regard to whether they were increasing someone else's material wealth in the process. But that isn't the way things are set up at this point.

[Ferretfancy]

Agreed, one has to break even to survive. But where has the pre-Thatcher idealism gone...i.e. Nurses that nurse because they like nursing, potters that pot because....well you get my drift.

We had a good example of pre-Thatcher idealism this week when my partner had to go in rather a hurry to the Ambulatory Care Centre at our local hospital. It was kindness and professionalism from the moment we entered the building, and not for the first time.

Idealism hasn't disappeared, it's there in the hospitals we pass every day, not that Jeremy Hunt gives a toss.

[Petrushka]

Plenty of folk doing what they do because they enjoy what they do. Increasingly so, I would tentatively suggest.

I've noticed this too, including amongst my own nephews and nieces. Back in the very early 1970s when I began working such opportunities were rare to non-existent and you were very lucky indeed to be working at your hobby. I do wonder, though, who will do all the rubbish jobs (a definition that now embraces a much wider spectrum of employment than hitherto) that no-one wants to do? Immigrants?

[MrGongGong]

Quite ...

Those who are able to work despite making a 'financial loss' are a very privileged minority indeed.

The great majority of us are clearly not as lucky as Mr GongGong!

Yeah right
If you read what I said it was that many people do SOME things for a "loss" but gain in other ways.
Nothing to do with luck, more a case of deciding what you think is important in the world.
And it's not necessarily to do with "privilege" either. I've just returned from working in another EU country where the economy is in a real mess BUT the amount of wonderful music that happens is massive. This is often undertaken by those who also have very little but feel it's more important than getting a new car, shoes, house, pension etc etc.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, but I think that would put "us" outside the general definition of "commercial businesses". Whether it's a desirable state of affairs for the profit motive to be at the back of the work most people do (although of course most people only see a small proportion of that profit themselves) is another question. Personally I, and I'm sure you too, think the world would be a better place the more time people spent doing helpful/productive/life-enhancing things without regard to whether they were increasing someone else's material wealth in the process. But that isn't the way things are set up at this point.

Indeed

The word "commercial" was slipped in with the assumption that profit was the primary motivation for all "businesses". ALL I said was that it isn't.
It is interesting that the usual nonsense comes out about how NOT regarding the acquisition of more and more is somehow "idealistic" or "romantic".
There are many ways to go about things, sadly the way things are set up seems to try and restrict rather than expand the possibilities of doing things differently.

[Serial_Apologist]

Indeed

The word "commercial" was slipped in with the assumption that profit was the primary motivation for all "businesses". ALL I said was that it isn't.
It is interesting that the usual nonsense comes out about how NOT regarding the acquisition of more and more is somehow "idealistic" or "romantic".
There are many ways to go about things, sadly the way things are set up seems to try and restrict rather than expand the possibilities of doing things differently.

That's because the wealth-generating component of the model we live under is determined by competition, ruled over by the rich top 5% of wealth owners some of us call the ruling class because their state acts to ensure this position is maintained in their favour and no one else is given a chance.

The consequences are that instead of being geared to citizens collectively determining, prioritising meeting and exchanging society's needs and goods on a basis of equality and the amount of time agreed between equal parties to have been devoted to producing them the pull is perpetually in the direction of making the money supply dependent on speculation within the scarcity the system periodically creates through overproduction, ie not enough earnings across the incomes range to mop up the excess. That artificially generated scarcity is then locked up in property, of which those who have the most constituting the ruling class tell us is the part of human selfishness that is much more the sealer on fate than the little bit left over allowed to eke its way into meeting the desiderata of social conscience and environmental responsibility.

That's the nub of it. But you won't often hear the argument carried this far because, I'm sorry, I'm afraid we've run out of time.

[Richard Barrett]

That artificially generated scarcity is then locked up in property

... which they then leave to the next generation while insisting that it's only hard work that builds character and lifts people out of dependency.

Ahem. Retirement. Yes. Those of us who are "lucky" in PG Tipps' sense mostly don't have the time or money to think about such things.

[P. G. Tipps]

Interesting ...

I've never quite understood some's clear aversion to the notion of 'profit' because, if we work, we profit from our labours, whether mental or physical and more commonly both. We all need 'profit' to simply survive. Even if we have kindly benefactors we are gainers of 'profit' whether we are blessed with the brains to realise it or not. Beggars in the street 'profit' from simply begging in the street or they simply wouldn't bother to beg. Retirees are no different ... they have hopefully profited from a lifetimes work and will receive a well-deserved pension(s). I sincerely trust that this will be the case with ER (no, not Her Majesty!) and that he will not starve due to lack of profit!

Petrushka makes an excellent point about those dirty, 'non-rewarding' jobs that few of us would ever like to do. Everyone cannot possibly be in a 'well-paid rewarding' job, that is for the very lucky ones. In an imperfect world the jobs from which most of us would run a mile are often the very ones that are the lowest paid ... in other words the least profitable.

However, that is not an argument against 'profit' but rather that there is not enough of it around for many of us and/or it is unfairly distributed, but maybe best we don't go there or ...

[Richard Barrett]

Listen carefully. There is a difference between the "profit" one makes for oneself in order to have as comfortable as possible a standard of living (that is "profit" in your rather unorthodox sense*), and the "profit" one makes by being in a position to not pay people commensurately with their work but instead to extract "surplus value" which one uses to accumulate wealth, which of course can then itself be used to accumulate yet more wealth, and so on, unless something goes wrong, in which case the first recourse is normally to sack those aforementioned people.

* since we all know you like dictionary definitions: profit 1. pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction; the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested; returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments. 2. the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc. 3. advantage; benefit; gain.

[Beef Oven!]

I believe the term is supernormal profit.

[P. G. Tipps]

Listen carefully. There is a difference between the "profit" one makes for oneself in order to have as comfortable as possible a standard of living (that is "profit" in your rather unorthodox sense*), and the "profit" one makes by being in a position to not pay people commensurately with their work but instead to extract "surplus value" which one uses to accumulate wealth, which of course can then itself be used to accumulate yet more wealth, and so on, unless something goes wrong, in which case the first recourse is normally to sack those aforementioned people.

* since we all know you like dictionary definitions: profit 1. pecuniary gain resulting from the employment of capital in any transaction; the ratio of such pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested; returns, proceeds, or revenue, as from property or investments. 2. the monetary surplus left to a producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of raw materials, etc. 3. advantage; benefit; gain.

Here, I'm all eyes rather then ears ...

You appear to automatically equate 'surplus' profit with the exploitation of others. I thought the last part of my previous post had rather acknowledged that might well be the situation in some cases though, I have to say, this equation takes a rather one-sided view of 'surplus' profit. Even "excess" profit is not necessarily "a bad thing" if it is then used wisely and benefits others in the process, including charities.

How can an individual or organisation invest and make improvements for the future (to the benefit of others as well as the profiteers) if there is no financial surplus to fall back on? One can borrow from the profits of others, I suppose, but then we (well, at least most of us!) know the dangers of doing too much of that!

It's not 'surplus' profit that is the problem but more commonly the abuse of it or, alternatively, the complete lack of it!

Increased wealth, which comes with its own problems as well as not necessarily making us any happier, does give us the chance to pursue rewarding work/pastimes that may have been previously denied us. Profit and supposedly 'worthwhile' careers/pastimes are not exactly incompatible!

I'd have thought that to be a pretty uncontroversial and relatively unremarkable view but I clearly forgot where I am ...