Profit

[ahinton]

There is some ambiguity in the way you express yourself but you seem to be misattributing sentiments to me that I haven't uttered in any shape or form!

I fail to see how I could be misattributing statements to you that you may not have uttered when all that I did was to ask you a question!

I'm afraid that's where you're highlighting that old truism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Trustees can be asked to stand down, and can be prosecuted if it can be shown that they did not exercise sufficient oversight. What you seem to be overlooking is that people can actually want to give something back to society without being paid for it!

Let's take those one at a time. My use of the word "sacked" was intended solely to infer the literal use of the term as applied to discontinution of employment and its remuneration (hence the inverted commas that I put around it); of course I understand and accept that pension trustees can be "asked to step down". Yes, I also know that such trustees can be prosecuted for suspected failures in exercising oversight, but I imagine that, should such cases ever come to court, the treatment of such miscreants would differ from that meted out to those who received high salaries for the work that they failed to do with sufficient diligence. Lastly, I do not at all "overlook...that people can actually want to give something back to society without being paid for it", as perusal of my endorsements of several post by MrGG should surely confirm; I do, however, have a problem in principle in the notion of people being expected (as distinct from prepared) to do work on a voluntary basis that could as easily be paid for, to the extent that this might be thought to reduce opportunities for paid employed work.

[Sir Velo]

No. This is not always the case, unless the expenses are significant. Also the time involved can be very considerable, and people who are solely interested in making money (profit) would find "better" things to do.

I'm not sure to which of my remarks your opening negative refers but you will find that all charities reimburse volunteers' and trustees' expenses unless they are either waived by the individual concerned, or it is specifically made clear up front. Most not for profits, certainly those which are well run, do depend on volunteer time. However, they do also realise that they run considerable reputation risk if they don't attract volunteers of a certain calibre. Likewise, it is surely irrelevant whether the expenses are significant since the whole point about reimbursing expenses is that no profit is made on the transaction!

Of course there are some voluntary positions where the "benefits" to those carrying them out may be of interest, such as travel and subsistence, but not all are like that. If one likes travel, and doesn't mind the "work" then some people might find such positions appealing. The fact is there are still many "jobs" which people don't have to do, are effectively unpaid, yet people still do them.

Well, this is called altruism or giving back to society.

Also, there is a very large work force of hidden workers, who may care for children, sick and elderly people, often, but not always, relatives. Some of these give up the chance to become richer themselves in order to help others, while in the meantime the "wealth creators" carry on.

I'm not sure again of the point you're making - is there one? Once again, a matter of personal choice surely.

[Sir Velo]

I fail to see how I could be misattributing statements to you that you may not have uttered when all that i did was to ask you a question!


Let's take those one at a time. My use of the word "sacked" was intended solely to infer the literal use of the term as applied to discontinution of employment and its remuneration (hence the inverted commas that I put around it); of course I understand and accept that pension trustees can be "asked to step down". Yes, I also know that such trustees can be prosecuted for suspected failures in exercising oversight, but I imagine that, should such cases ever come to court, the treatment of such miscreants would differ from that meted out to those who received high salaries for the work that they failed to do with sufficient diligence. Lastly, I do not at all "overlook...that people can actually want to give something back to society without being paid for it", as perusal of my endorsements of several post by MrGG should surely confirm; I do, however, have a problem in principle in the notion of people being expected (as distinct from prepared) to do work on a voluntary basis that could as easily be paid for, to the extent that this might be thought to reduce opportunities for paid employed work.

Oh dear, the creative juices not flowing fruitfully today?

[Beef Oven!]

Oh dear, the creative juices not flowing fruitfully today?

wot an orrible mixin of metaphors

[ahinton]

wot an orrible mixin of metaphors

Not merely orrible but also largely incomprehensible.

[ahinton]

I'm not sure to which of my remarks your opening negative refers but you will find that all charities reimburse volunteers' and trustees' expenses unless they are either waived by the individual concerned, or it is specifically made clear up front. Most not for profits, certainly those which are well run, do depend on volunteer time. However, they do also realise that they run considerable reputation risk if they don't attract volunteers of a certain calibre. Likewise, it is surely irrelevant whether the expenses are significant since the whole point about reimbursing expenses is that no profit is made on the transaction!

You seem largely to have missed Dave2002's point which I believe he expressed clearly when he wrote as he did, namely

No. This is not always the case, unless the expenses are significant. Also the time involved can be very considerable, and people who are solely interested in making money (profit) would find "better" things to do.

His point as I understood it was less about how much the incidental expenses might be or whether, how or to what extent they're reimbursed than the fact that, as I also stated, the mere facts that the time spent doing voluntary unpaid work is almost always time during which paid work cannot also be done and therefore those doing the former knowingly and willingly agree in advance to sacrifice remuneration for paid work do not and indeed cannot add up to the notion that those doing it are in no sense "out of pocket"; they're "out of pocket" becuase they've decided to allocate a certain amount of time to carrying out unpaid work when they could have spent that time doing paid work. Nothing wrong with that, of course, espeically as it's the worker's decision rather than one forced upon him/her, but the point nevertheless stands (and note the obvious reason behind the " " that he places around "better").

I'm not sure again of the point you're making - is there one? Once again, a matter of personal choice surely.

Dave2002's point in this instance is surely that, while some people give up paid work in order to do some or all those things that he mentions (or to carry out similar unpaid duties), others are accepting pay for the time that they spend working - and, for the avoidance of doubt, those duties that Dave2002 mentions - caring for children, the sick and the elderly and the like wthout expectation of payment for it - are still "work".

[MrGongGong]

There are a few areas where non profit may present "issues" for some.

1. A company which makes a profit, but then uses part of that profit to subsidise a loss making enterprise.

Isn't that the whole point (for some of us at least ...... Mr Zappa being one) of making a profit in the first place?

[Bryn]

Frank Zappa only had one apostrophe, but he made more profit than that!

Not so. Even back in 1974 there were two (the 2 channel stereo and quadraphonic releases). Then there were the later digital re-masters. All desrevedly profitable, I'm sure.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

So now it's Profit v. Apostrophes. Are they connected issues or distinct ones?

I started this - just saying I'm less likely to use a business that uses sloppy speling, grammer and punktyooayshon.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I started this - just saying I'm less likely to use a business that uses sloppy speling, grammer and punktyooayshon.

Presumably not with Lloyds Bank - though not excluding the possibility of doing future business with Lloyd's of London?

(Did the Bank exclude the apostrophe specifically to avoid any suggestion of a connection with the Onsurance group, I wonder?)

[Frances_iom]

maybe http://gizmodo.com/study-people-who-...rks-1767969516 is relevant to this discussion

[vinteuil]

... does Alpie refuse to listen to Choral Evensong from St Albans? Or play golf at St Andrews? Or have anything to do with Premium Bonds, coming as they do from Lytham St Annes??

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

... does Alpie refuse to listen to Choral Evensong from St Albans? Or play golf at St Andrews? Or have anything to do with Premium Bonds, coming as they do from Lytham St Annes??

Perhaps those place names don't count, as they've never had an apostrophe; whereas the business set up by Mr Waterstone used to have one, and the current owners have deliberately and provocatively removed it? There was a deliberate choice involved, and that choice had the intention of delivering a "mission statement" about priorities with which former customers disagreed - it is a bookshop, after all!

I stopped going into the shops at around the time they started using bookshelf space for coffee urns and reading areas: if I had to order items - which was increasingly the case after the caffeine injection - I may as well have ordered from my local, small and independent bookseller (before he went out of business) and the internet (thereafter).

[french frank]

I restarted the Waterstone/'/s debate on the Pedants thread at 10.01 this morning. How come no one commented on my irrefutable argument? (Oh, I suppose irrefutable arguments are no fun ).

[P. G. Tipps]

I'd leave the Dom Pérignon uncorked if I were you. At the risk of stating the b***d**g obvious, of course many things have changed over the centuries in almost every conceivable walk of life and most such change has been at the hands of humans.

There's nothing new in the often not very gentle art of profit making but it has not always been anything like the near-universal global driving force that it has become. Humans managed without it once and humans have nevertheless since created and continue to create the means whereby it impacts upon most of life's commercial transactions.

"We" (or more accurately those who believe in and help to foster it) "are" the system and "we" (that's to say those humans who have done and continue to do so) have created it and maintain it but, as MrGG has stated on several occasions - mainly to your deaf ears, it would seem - it has never driven everything in life and likely never will - nor indeed should it and, if it were ever to do so, humanity would be very much the poorer.

Ah, ahinton, I see you have also now succumbed to the famous 'Grewism' to which you hitherto scornfully referred, but on this particular occasion you have decided that 'we' should not actually include 'you', and all admirably like-minded souls, but that the 'we', in this instance, should now stand instead for "them"?

I think I'm slowly beginning to understand ..