5 ms·

An industry basically can't ever make a profit is not a solution to anything.

by ElevenLathe 4y ago

recursive 4y ago
So that would be a problem without a solution.
mym1990 4y ago
United Airlines making 10 billion a quarter doesn't sound like its in an industry that has no profit.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  Profits seem to be sporadic. Some may be doing well right now because of unusual conditions but when competition returns and things get back to normal profits might disappear.
cedilla 4y ago
All the goods and people transported won't mind that a few shareholders were unhappy.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  They might be unhappy when the profitable business are all ran out of town and the unprofitable ones collapse leaving neither behind.
  - dnissley 4y ago
    Do you think this will happen to the airline industry? Happily willing to take the other side of that bet.
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    Why do things that serve the public need to be profitable? Are roads profitable? Is sewage treatment profitable? Do you maintain that they should be?
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      If it's privately ran it needs to be profitable otherwise it will no longer be ran (at some point). Of course the privately ran business could change course at some time and become profitable (i.e. raise prices or discontinue unprofitable business lines / areas of service). But if that's the only X store left in town and they discontinue service, you're kinda screwed. The same ends up being true for publicly ran things as well. Flint is a great example of a town that was not profitable and so Michigan stepped in and changed their water supply to decrease the towns cost (a scenario that would've been avoided if Flint wasn't broke, amongst other ways it could've been avoided). It's just that at the government level you can have many services that cost more than they take in (often because you just don't charge people for the service; which is fine) which get balanced out (eventually) by other "services" (often more general taxes) that take in more money than they cost. If you live in a town and continuously it spends $X a year and takes in $<X a year, that difference is going to eventually cause a problem. Perhaps it means that roads will stop being repaired. Perhaps it means you'll have boil water notices all the time.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      If they're not minimally profitable in some general sense, such that the benefits of building and maintaining them are not at least paid by the benefit of using them then no, they shouldn't be built. Unfortunately, when you factor in the externalities of carbon emissions, loss of habitat, and other biosphere stressors (the biosphere being the life support system for all life, including humans, and which we do not have the means to replace), then most human activity in living memory cannot pay for itself. This is sad, but we can't fix it until we acknowledge it. We're using up our life support system when we build a highway or airliner, not investing in anything.
Retric 4y ago
You could say that about the restaurant industry where people regularly lose their shirts, except a few players are consistently profitable.
RC_ITR 4y ago
Guess all that drinking water we have is just a waste then. Highways too. Airlines are unique in that they're essentially a public good that we've allowed to be a private market (look at how often the government intervenes in the industry). That doesn't mean that airplanes are pointless.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Absolutely. The entire building-airplanes-and-flying-them "industry" is a side effect of their necessity as weapons of war and toys for rich people (same thing, really). There is no rational reason for it to exist, especially knowing what we know now, but we're not a rational species.
  - zeusk 4y ago
    Why don’t you take a 30-45 day ocean journey to Asias over a 15hr flight then? Airlines are not just a toy for the rich, in fact majority of the passenger traffic is shuffled around in economy.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    Buddy replace “building airplanes and flying them” with “growing food and eating it” and you’re describing agriculture until the 20th century. We’re humans. We fuck shit up. Our goal is to do it only when necessary.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
Guess we need to shut down all the government subsidized schools in my country where tens of millions of poor kids study in every day. Also shut down the unprofitable state funded hospitals for people too poor to afford private medical care.

An industry basically can't ever make a profit is not a solution to anything.

recursive 4y ago

So that would be a problem without a solution.

mym1990 4y ago

United Airlines making 10 billion a quarter doesn't sound like its in an industry that has no profit.

PaulHoule 4y ago
Profits seem to be sporadic. Some may be doing well right now because of unusual conditions but when competition returns and things get back to normal profits might disappear.

cedilla 4y ago

All the goods and people transported won't mind that a few shareholders were unhappy.

lesuorac 4y ago
They might be unhappy when the profitable business are all ran out of town and the unprofitable ones collapse leaving neither behind.
- dnissley 4y ago
  Do you think this will happen to the airline industry? Happily willing to take the other side of that bet.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  Why do things that serve the public need to be profitable? Are roads profitable? Is sewage treatment profitable? Do you maintain that they should be?
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    If it's privately ran it needs to be profitable otherwise it will no longer be ran (at some point). Of course the privately ran business could change course at some time and become profitable (i.e. raise prices or discontinue unprofitable business lines / areas of service). But if that's the only X store left in town and they discontinue service, you're kinda screwed. The same ends up being true for publicly ran things as well. Flint is a great example of a town that was not profitable and so Michigan stepped in and changed their water supply to decrease the towns cost (a scenario that would've been avoided if Flint wasn't broke, amongst other ways it could've been avoided). It's just that at the government level you can have many services that cost more than they take in (often because you just don't charge people for the service; which is fine) which get balanced out (eventually) by other "services" (often more general taxes) that take in more money than they cost. If you live in a town and continuously it spends $X a year and takes in $<X a year, that difference is going to eventually cause a problem. Perhaps it means that roads will stop being repaired. Perhaps it means you'll have boil water notices all the time.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    If they're not minimally profitable in some general sense, such that the benefits of building and maintaining them are not at least paid by the benefit of using them then no, they shouldn't be built. Unfortunately, when you factor in the externalities of carbon emissions, loss of habitat, and other biosphere stressors (the biosphere being the life support system for all life, including humans, and which we do not have the means to replace), then most human activity in living memory cannot pay for itself. This is sad, but we can't fix it until we acknowledge it. We're using up our life support system when we build a highway or airliner, not investing in anything.

Retric 4y ago

You could say that about the restaurant industry where people regularly lose their shirts, except a few players are consistently profitable.

RC_ITR 4y ago

Guess all that drinking water we have is just a waste then. Highways too. Airlines are unique in that they're essentially a public good that we've allowed to be a private market (look at how often the government intervenes in the industry). That doesn't mean that airplanes are pointless.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Absolutely. The entire building-airplanes-and-flying-them "industry" is a side effect of their necessity as weapons of war and toys for rich people (same thing, really). There is no rational reason for it to exist, especially knowing what we know now, but we're not a rational species.
- zeusk 4y ago
  Why don’t you take a 30-45 day ocean journey to Asias over a 15hr flight then? Airlines are not just a toy for the rich, in fact majority of the passenger traffic is shuffled around in economy.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  Buddy replace “building airplanes and flying them” with “growing food and eating it” and you’re describing agriculture until the 20th century. We’re humans. We fuck shit up. Our goal is to do it only when necessary.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

Guess we need to shut down all the government subsidized schools in my country where tens of millions of poor kids study in every day. Also shut down the unprofitable state funded hospitals for people too poor to afford private medical care.