4 ms·

That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. It's the most common reason in US culture, but there are other reasons and cultures.

WalterBright 1y ago
Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.
- stavros 1y ago
  First post: > the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business. Your reply: > Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one! Thus agreeing with the parent that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else. My reply: > That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. Your reply: > Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money. This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand to change the counterpoint from "prove me wrong by showing me a business whose purpose is not to maximally exploit employees to maximize the amount of money it makes" to "prove me wrong by showing me a business that does not make money". I could respond to the latter with an easy "some businesses lose money and exist because the owner finds the process fun", but you could counter with the No True Scotsman of "a business that doesn't make money is a hobby, not a business". Instead, I will respond to the former, which is the original point, and say that there are plenty of mom-and-pop (or larger) businesses, as well as cooperatives, whose goals are not actually to exploit the worker to maximize the amount of money they make, but is primarily to give the owners a good work/life balance, or to help their community, or to be owned collectively by all workers. The American-style "walk over anyone to make money" isn't actually the only way to do business, but the kind of person who thinks it is will generally make the tautological argument of "if you aren't maximizing your profits, you aren't a real business".
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    I infer you don't know of any particular business that does not exist to make money? If you run a business that loses money, who is going to pay for those losses?
    - stavros 1y ago
      Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?
      - chickensong 1y ago
        FWIW, I enjoyed and agree with your thoughtful comment, and found the response disappointing. Having known privately-owned mom-and-pop businesses, I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America. For some, it's enough to make ends meet doing something you're passionate about.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        You are arguing with "at all costs" which I never wrote, and so do not feel any need to reply to that. Mom and pop businesses definitely do it to make money. They aren't charities. They pay taxes on the money they make. And if they don't make money, what are they going to live on? Non-profits are not out to make money, but (again) they are not considered businesses.
        the_af 1y ago
        Nobody argued pop & mom ("and larger") businesses don't strive to make money, the argument was that that's not their only goal. We're arguing against your "at all costs" because you did imply it. Maximizing money earned at the cost of employees well being and happiness is ONE way of making money, but not the only way. You can earn money but not seek to maximize the money at the cost of burning out employees, for example.

WalterBright 1y ago

Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money.

stavros 1y ago
First post: > the pill to swallow is that most employees including managers are grist to the mill Meaning that employees are disposable, and their only purpose is to produce value for the business. Your reply: > Businesses exist to make money. If you want a commune instead, join one! Thus agreeing with the parent that the sole purpose of a business is to make money above all else. My reply: > That's not the only reason why businesses can exist. Your reply: > Tell us about a business that does not exist to make money. This is rhetorical sleight-of-hand to change the counterpoint from "prove me wrong by showing me a business whose purpose is not to maximally exploit employees to maximize the amount of money it makes" to "prove me wrong by showing me a business that does not make money". I could respond to the latter with an easy "some businesses lose money and exist because the owner finds the process fun", but you could counter with the No True Scotsman of "a business that doesn't make money is a hobby, not a business". Instead, I will respond to the former, which is the original point, and say that there are plenty of mom-and-pop (or larger) businesses, as well as cooperatives, whose goals are not actually to exploit the worker to maximize the amount of money they make, but is primarily to give the owners a good work/life balance, or to help their community, or to be owned collectively by all workers. The American-style "walk over anyone to make money" isn't actually the only way to do business, but the kind of person who thinks it is will generally make the tautological argument of "if you aren't maximizing your profits, you aren't a real business".
- WalterBright 1y ago
  I infer you don't know of any particular business that does not exist to make money? If you run a business that loses money, who is going to pay for those losses?
  - stavros 1y ago
    Dammit, Walter, did you not read any of the very extensive comment? It was an entire treatise about why that exact line is misleading and in bad faith, and you reply with it anyway?
    - chickensong 1y ago
      FWIW, I enjoyed and agree with your thoughtful comment, and found the response disappointing. Having known privately-owned mom-and-pop businesses, I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America. For some, it's enough to make ends meet doing something you're passionate about.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        You are arguing with "at all costs" which I never wrote, and so do not feel any need to reply to that. Mom and pop businesses definitely do it to make money. They aren't charities. They pay taxes on the money they make. And if they don't make money, what are they going to live on? Non-profits are not out to make money, but (again) they are not considered businesses.
        the_af 1y ago
        Nobody argued pop & mom ("and larger") businesses don't strive to make money, the argument was that that's not their only goal. We're arguing against your "at all costs" because you did imply it. Maximizing money earned at the cost of employees well being and happiness is ONE way of making money, but not the only way. You can earn money but not seek to maximize the money at the cost of burning out employees, for example.