3 ms·

Not all companies are for-profit. And, to some people, the very definition of profit is the extra money you can get by paying workers only so much while chargin

Not all companies are for-profit. And, to some people, the very definition of profit is the extra money you can get by paying workers only so much while charging customers that much more. That is to say, profit is the stolen excess value of labour that you never paid back to the worker. So in this perspective, profit is by definition gained from the exploitation of worker or consumer or both. There are plenty examples where companies will profit even though they are "going too far." Just think of all the profit made from war while the majority of people disagree with the war. Your ethics of "doing the right thing" while making as much profit as possible are also subjective if you consider the definition of profit that I proposed above. I know I'm saying all this in a forum based around startups but I think it's worth pointing out.

orangecat 10y ago
So in this perspective, profit is by definition gained from the exploitation of worker or consumer or both. That is a perspective, yes. It's also ridiculous zero-sum thinking contradicted by both theory and reality. The iPhone has resulted in hundreds of millions of happy customers, and tens of thousands of high paying jobs. But apparently all of those people are "exploited" because Apple makes a profit.
- kiliantics 10y ago
  But you can't prove that this would not have been possible if Apple were non-profit. Sure, it probably would have been unlikely but this is because non-profits are usually less thrilled about hiring de-facto slave labour in China or elsewhere on the supply chain in order to produce an iPhone at a price where large profits can be made.