3 ms·

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

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
      Then you're arguing with yourself, because I never wrote "at all costs" nor did I imply it. It's your (rather ridiculous) strawman. Consider I want to enter a marathon with the intention of winning it. Do you think that implies I want to club the other athletes so I can win "at all costs"?
      - the_af 1y ago
        But that's the kind of argument you're making by dismissing opinions that e.g. clubbing other athletes since winning is the most important thing is bad, and that if we don't like it we should "join a commune". Others have already explained that while a business must make money, that's not always the most important thing, there are competing goals (not excluding money, but sometimes as important). And if you didn't understand the original comment by stavros, then he clarified what he meant. So now you have the chance to stand corrected: he meant making money at the expense of all else, including worker happiness. This point has been made more than once already, you cannot have missed it.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        > if you didn't understand the original comment by stavros, then he clarified what he meant I understood his original statement, and did not impute additional meanings into it. None of you have accepted that I did not write "at any cost". > clubbing other athletes since winning is the most important thing is bad, and that if we don't like it we should "join a commune". And there you invented YET ANOTHER strawman to bash me with. Frankly, I'd like you to produce a clever argument that challenges me. Using logical fallacies, like strawmen, is kinda boring. It's easy enough to google the list of logical fallacies, and then you'll be able to avoid them and it'll be much harder to dismantle your argument.
  - chickensong 1y ago
    Yes, we all know the basic requirements of business. The replies to your comment are push back against your attitude of "biz make money, don't like it join a commune", in the context of grinding up employees. We're saying there's a middle ground, where some businesses will sacrifice some profit in exchange for taking care of their employees, instead of treating them as disposable.
- stavros 1y ago
  > I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America Definitely, I didn't mean to imply that every business in the US wants to profit at all costs, I just meant that the culture skews towards that. The US culture towards work tends to have a certain response to cases like one where someone has a popular product/service/business but would rather maximize work/life balance than income. In other cultures, that's seen as much more of a reasonable choice than in the US, where the response tends to be more on the "I can't believe you're giving up tons of profit for more free time!" or similar.
  - chickensong 1y ago
    No offense taken, I totally get it. As an American, I think we're pretty screwed up in our priorities, on many fronts. I hope we all (globally) can figure out how to slow down and work less! Life's too short to spend so much time grinding for money.
WalterBright 1y ago
It's not at all in bad faith. Businesses are formed to make money. If the IRS discovers that your business is not intended to make money, they will re-define it as a "hobby" and will not let you deduct expenses. Surely you can give an actual example of a business not formed to make money? P.S. When you talk about bad faith, I recommend that you do not invent things I did not write, put those things in quotes pretending that I did write them, and then argue with that strawman.
- the_af 1y ago
  Your answer seems in bad faith because it ignores parts of the answer like this: > "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" Those are not hobbies and will not be categorized as such. The point is that the goal of making money is not necessarily meant at the cost of crushing employees or considering them disposable. The person you're replying to is saying that's a very US-centric way of looking at businesses (e.g. maximize shareholder value even if it costs happiness) but that's not necessarily the only way of making money. It's very cynical to think it's the only way, because it reinforces the status quo (what are you going to do if you don't like it? That's business, join a commune instead!).
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    > The point is that the goal of making money is not necessarily meant at the cost of crushing employees or considering them disposable. I never wrote that it was. But as an employee, you and the business sign a contract in advance. The contract spells out the obligations of the company to the employee, and the obligations of the employee to the company. If you expect more than that, negotiate it as part of your agreement. Also, if the company does not make money, how are the employees going to get paid? The company has to cut expenses, and that means some of the employees have to be let go. Companies also regularly evaluate employees, and if they are not delivering value in excess of what they cost, they'll be let go. Yes, you can be let go. You'll also get the severance package you agreed to in your employment contract. You can also quit at any time for any reason. It's a fair arrangement. It's not a marriage.

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
    Then you're arguing with yourself, because I never wrote "at all costs" nor did I imply it. It's your (rather ridiculous) strawman. Consider I want to enter a marathon with the intention of winning it. Do you think that implies I want to club the other athletes so I can win "at all costs"?
    - the_af 1y ago
      But that's the kind of argument you're making by dismissing opinions that e.g. clubbing other athletes since winning is the most important thing is bad, and that if we don't like it we should "join a commune". Others have already explained that while a business must make money, that's not always the most important thing, there are competing goals (not excluding money, but sometimes as important). And if you didn't understand the original comment by stavros, then he clarified what he meant. So now you have the chance to stand corrected: he meant making money at the expense of all else, including worker happiness. This point has been made more than once already, you cannot have missed it.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        > if you didn't understand the original comment by stavros, then he clarified what he meant I understood his original statement, and did not impute additional meanings into it. None of you have accepted that I did not write "at any cost". > clubbing other athletes since winning is the most important thing is bad, and that if we don't like it we should "join a commune". And there you invented YET ANOTHER strawman to bash me with. Frankly, I'd like you to produce a clever argument that challenges me. Using logical fallacies, like strawmen, is kinda boring. It's easy enough to google the list of logical fallacies, and then you'll be able to avoid them and it'll be much harder to dismantle your argument.
- chickensong 1y ago
  Yes, we all know the basic requirements of business. The replies to your comment are push back against your attitude of "biz make money, don't like it join a commune", in the context of grinding up employees. We're saying there's a middle ground, where some businesses will sacrifice some profit in exchange for taking care of their employees, instead of treating them as disposable.
stavros 1y ago
> I can confirm not everyone is out for profit at all costs, even in America Definitely, I didn't mean to imply that every business in the US wants to profit at all costs, I just meant that the culture skews towards that. The US culture towards work tends to have a certain response to cases like one where someone has a popular product/service/business but would rather maximize work/life balance than income. In other cultures, that's seen as much more of a reasonable choice than in the US, where the response tends to be more on the "I can't believe you're giving up tons of profit for more free time!" or similar.
- chickensong 1y ago
  No offense taken, I totally get it. As an American, I think we're pretty screwed up in our priorities, on many fronts. I hope we all (globally) can figure out how to slow down and work less! Life's too short to spend so much time grinding for money.

WalterBright 1y ago

It's not at all in bad faith. Businesses are formed to make money. If the IRS discovers that your business is not intended to make money, they will re-define it as a "hobby" and will not let you deduct expenses. Surely you can give an actual example of a business not formed to make money? P.S. When you talk about bad faith, I recommend that you do not invent things I did not write, put those things in quotes pretending that I did write them, and then argue with that strawman.

the_af 1y ago
Your answer seems in bad faith because it ignores parts of the answer like this: > "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" Those are not hobbies and will not be categorized as such. The point is that the goal of making money is not necessarily meant at the cost of crushing employees or considering them disposable. The person you're replying to is saying that's a very US-centric way of looking at businesses (e.g. maximize shareholder value even if it costs happiness) but that's not necessarily the only way of making money. It's very cynical to think it's the only way, because it reinforces the status quo (what are you going to do if you don't like it? That's business, join a commune instead!).
- WalterBright 1y ago
  > The point is that the goal of making money is not necessarily meant at the cost of crushing employees or considering them disposable. I never wrote that it was. But as an employee, you and the business sign a contract in advance. The contract spells out the obligations of the company to the employee, and the obligations of the employee to the company. If you expect more than that, negotiate it as part of your agreement. Also, if the company does not make money, how are the employees going to get paid? The company has to cut expenses, and that means some of the employees have to be let go. Companies also regularly evaluate employees, and if they are not delivering value in excess of what they cost, they'll be let go. Yes, you can be let go. You'll also get the severance package you agreed to in your employment contract. You can also quit at any time for any reason. It's a fair arrangement. It's not a marriage.