Your Priorities: People vs. Profit

[BillyTheMountain]

With 65 miners still entombed at a Mexican mine, and the recent miners deaths in the USA, the Bush administration is reducing enforcement of safety codes in mines. I grew up in the shadow of Bethlehem Steel, a company that had once "killed" Lake Erie and blasted air pollution, paying modest fines while creating costly health problems. They chose profit over people, and it was more profitable to pollute.

Cheney cooked up WMDs in Iraq in order to funnel $billions in taxpayer dollars into Haliburton, which has been showing record profits (Remember, the ranch where Cheney shoots men is owned by a lobbyist whose mom put Cheney into his position at Haliburton.....). But people have died in Iraq.

People? Or profit?

For many, it seems easy to choose profit over people. Not for me. I go the other way.

Bush just gave the green light to India to pursue nuclear weapons, in a pact that allows Bush's buddies to SELL nuclear fuel and reactor component to India. Did the taxpayers give Bush a trip to India so that he could broker a deal for his friends in the nuclear industry?? Profits for the industry, but what do more nations with nuclear weapons programs (WMDs) do for people?

I generally think of Canadians as Americans with better access to healthcare, without nuclear weapons, and owning an extra parka each.

As Raphael said, even USA citizens have less access to health care than their Canadian neighbors. Front page NYTimes story indicates immigrants in the USA are dying without access to health care. 20 states sought to cut noncitizens' access to health care, and to require benefit agencies to report any immigration violations to authorities. The story mentions a Chinese immigrant who suffered and collapsed in the street. How many sick immigrants will collapse in the streets of America, while billionaires profit in the health care industry?

I also hope you will choose mountains over profits, and people over mountains. You may think that's pretty generous, coming from a mountain like me, and it is. I'd even give up unicyclists freedom in order to save people. I'd give up the No Pixel Limits fight for that. (I know many of you are disappointed to hear that, but....)

So vote!

And feel free to discuss any other related people vs profit issues here.

Billy

[andycookuk]

"Profit is supreme"

Thus, capitalism.

AndyC

[Gilby]

To benefit people is profit, is it not? I say people and profit.

[wobbling bear]

I've read recently a biography of Pierre-Paul Riquet a 17th century entrepreneur.
I won't say the guy was a philanthrop or even an honest man: but he decided that the numerous workers he employed to build the "canal du midi" should get paid even when ill or during vacations!
he was vilified for that very strange measure but he got the huge work done properly! So what's really stupid with people that do not treat employees well is that this is an uneconomic trend! you've got to invest in people ... this is the best R.O.I!
Being empathic will also help a boss but being -really- selfish is not a bad base to starts with.

[Zzagg]

To benefit people is profit, is it not? I say people and profit.But profit only benefits SOME people, at least in our occidental societys... and the more profits there are, the less people they benefit.:confused:

[phlegm]

But profit only benefits SOME people, at least in our occidental societys... and the more profits there are, the less people they benefit.:confused:

I believe Gilby is redefining profit as "that which benefits people."

[Gilby]

But profit only benefits SOME people, at least in our occidental societys... and the more profits there are, the less people they benefit.:confused:

No profit benefits no people. More profits doesn't mean less people benefit.

Definition
Profit: An advantageous gain or return; benefit.

Yeah, in true Billy semantism, he probably intended the meaning to be different, but this is billy we're talking about and you can't try to read into it much to figure out his true intended meaning. Though, he probably meant for it to be a poll about selfishness and personal financial gain.

[Gilby]

I believe Gilby is redefining profit as "that which benefits people."
Actually, profit is more that just "that which benefits people," it's that which benefits the entire universe. Therefore, I had to select the "PROFIT should be the priority" in the poll.

[dorkybarb]

semantism,

um, gilby i think that word is made up.
i know the base is semantics, but im not sure if that is a real word.

but it does give me an idea!

[BillyTheMountain]

but it does give me an idea!

Share your idea!!!

Gilby,

Unicyclist.com may create little profit, but it benefits MANY people, adn harms no one that I know. It's a vote for PEOPLE.

When Wal-Mart, on the other hand, comes into a community, they exploit politicians and taxpayer $$ to build the infra-structure, and once in full operation, leave a community with FEWER jobs at LESS pay and NO HEALTH BENEFITS.

The only community that benefits is the community of shareholders and the CEO, who makes in a week what I will make in a lifetime. They are an example of PROFIT over PEOPLE. They harm the communtiy they move into, adn suck from the taxpayers, who also end up paying health care costs for Wal-Mart employees.

Kudos to Gilby and Unicyclist.com!!!! People over profits!!

[Gilby]

When Wal-Mart, on the other hand, comes into a community, they exploit politicians and taxpayer $$ to build the infra-structure, and once in full operation, leave a community with FEWER jobs at LESS pay and NO HEALTH BENEFITS.

The only community that benefits is the community of shareholders and the CEO, who makes in a week what I will make in a lifetime. They are an example of PROFIT over PEOPLE. They harm the communtiy they move into, adn suck from the taxpayers, who also end up paying health care costs for Wal-Mart employees.
What's wrong with more efficiency? Is it not good to have lower costs for goods in that community, or do people want to pay more and/or have less goods? The only problem with Walmart coming into a community is the sudden change that occurs. The people are not ready for the rapid change. That's not Walmart's fault. It's the people's own fault, it's the community's and government's own fault. The world is a changing place and people need to keep up with skills training so that they can take on whatever jobs are available to them, or even create their own job. Nobody is stuck working at Walmart. If the pay at Walmart is not good enough and doesn't provide the benefits (health care, vacation time, etc.) then don't work there, find another job or demand more. Walmart, and every retail chain is not about creating jobs. In fact no business should be about creating jobs, that's just inefficient. They are about creating benefit to those that need the services provided by the business. Walmart is about retail sales and bringing desired goods to the consumers. Less emplyees at Walmart means more efficiency and more people get more of their desired goods. I wouldn't mind walking into a retail store that had no employees. I'd rather fill up my shopping cart, walk through an RFID checkout, click the OK button on the monitor that says my total and method of payment, and be on my way.

Now is Walmart profit over people? Again, I'd argue that profit is not just financial, but we can go with that. You've mentioned that the local community is getting less jobs at less pay, but when a Walmart moves into a new place, is there really a total net loss or gain of jobs? Looking at just the local community would be selfish and is looking at just profit over people. When a Walmart moves in, their are many more jobs created in impoverished places to manufacture goods, maybe resulting in a total net gain in jobs. These people are thrilled to have a much better job, thrilled to even have a job at all. Their quality of living goes up... though we may not think it's ideal, it is a progression of improvement for them. People over profit. Yes, that means Walmart would be a vote for PEOPLE and profit (under my definition).

[BillyTheMountain]

When a Walmart moves in, their are many more jobs created in impoverished places to manufacture goods, maybe resulting in a total net gain in jobs. These people are thrilled to have a much better job, thrilled to even have a job at all. Their quality of living goes up... though we may not think it's ideal, it is a progression of improvement for them. People over profit. Yes, that means Walmart would be a vote for PEOPLE and profit (under my definition).

Oh that's right. The child labor sweat shops can lower their hiring age to 4, so the family doesn't have another non-contributing member.

Of course, no soccer practice for that child, or education.....

And of course, the politicians who funnel taxpayer $$ into building the infrastructure of WalMart (they won't do that for mom and pop shops--puts n $$ in thier campaign war chests) get a whopping donation for the campaign, for being players.

Thanks for showing me the light. That's why my employer is the best!

Billy

[Gilby]

Oh that's right. The child labor sweat shops can lower their hiring age to 4, so the family doesn't have another non-contributing member.

Of course, no soccer practice for that child, or education.....

They didn't have soccer practice or education before. Nor did they have enough food and other basic necessities. So yeah, let's close our borders and let them all die, that's the ticket. Why would we want to improve the quality of their lives, even if it still under par with what we'd like.

The real problem is the government, not Walmart. The local government of the country the work is happening in should be defining policy against extortion and poor work conditions. Though as a country that consumes, our government can't rely on other countries to do that without pressure. Our government should also have policy that taxes imports that come from impoverished countries. Places with less ideal conditions conditions should be taxed more. Companies or countries would get certifications to specify a level of the conditions and the rate would be based on that. All tax revenue could then be used to certify these manufactures, ensure they are meeting the requirements for certification, and be used to aid places to improve the work conditions.

And of course, the politicians who funnel taxpayer $$ into building the infrastructure of WalMart (they won't do that for mom and pop shops--puts n $$ in thier campaign war chests) get a whopping donation for the campaign, for being players.

They do it for mom and pop shops, it's just done to scale. But yeah, again the problem is government, not Walmart.

Thanks for showing me the light. That's why my employer is the best!

Your real employer or your fictitious Walmart employer? Taken with sarcasm and your real employer, I agree. Taken without sarcasm and your fictitious employer, I agree. ;)

[BillyTheMountain]

Gilby: The USA gives favored nation trading status to China, a nation with child labor sweat shops.

That keeps prices low at WalMart.

WalMart lobbying influences how our government treats other nations. The military industrial complex now feeds itself out of the tax payers pocket, something General Dwight Eisenhower (later USA President) predicted.

The USA government is controlled by billionaires. Who are in league with Saudi billionaires, etc. It's one world controlled by billionaires.

Quiz: How many biollionaires are there in the USA? How many in the World?

[harper]

Quiz: How many biollionaires are there in the USA? How many in the World?

What's a biollionaire? I'm more concerned about the number of BillyPolls than the number of Billyunaires. They are like weapons of mass infusion. Maybe they'll be on sale at WalMart this week.

[GUI]

People!

[BillyTheMountain]

People!

We're in the majority here on JC. We're riding with a good crowd. :)

[dorkybarb]

people or profit?

i think it depends on what your definition of both people and profit is.
to me, i would have to say people.
but at the same time, the world/business/whatever you want to put here, wouldn't run without profit.

to me, ( in my little alturistic world )if you can help the people (employee's normally) have a better life then from there they should be happier/more productive/ thus working harder making more profit. like i said, this is in my own world and who knows, maybe eventually everyone else will be invited to join me.

[BillyTheMountain]

people or profit?

i think it depends on what your definition of both people and profit is.
to me, i would have to say people.
but at the same time, the world/business/whatever you want to put here, wouldn't run without profit.

to me, ( in my little alturistic world )if you can help the people (employee's normally) have a better life then from there they should be happier/more productive/ thus working harder making more profit. like i said, this is in my own world and who knows, maybe eventually everyone else will be invited to join me.

Slave plantations and child labor sweat shops make big profits for the owners, and for those who support these practices. They provided cheap cotton and other goods for your business, if you buy from those sources.

The USA could impose economic costs, like tariffs, so that it's not so profitable for WalMart to buy child labor goods.

The military industrial complex makes big profits (see Haliburton), but does our nation need to depend on invading other nations, or building bigger and better WMDs?

Have right and wrong have become difficult to distinguish?

[dorkybarb]

Slave plantations and child labor sweat shops make big profits for the owners, and for those who support these practices. They provided cheap cotton and other goods for your business, if you buy from those sources.

The USA could impose economic costs, like tariffs, so that it's not so profitable for WalMart to buy child labor goods.

The military industrial complex makes big profits (see Haliburton), but does our nation need to depend on invading other nations, or building bigger and better WMDs?

Have right and wrong have become difficult to distinguish?


yea the US could, impose the taxes but never would.
the country itself that the US is going to, could impose the tarriffs, but there would just be another underdeveloped country that would just be next in line jumping up and down shouting 'you can pay us 4 cents an hour and we won't care'. the government would never make it so that the big businesses would have to pay the taxes.

personally i would LOVE it if the whole world had tariffs and taxes so anywhere we went we would have to pay a decent wage to those who are manufacturing the goods for us.

[cathwood]

People vs profit? I thought that was a joke.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

People vs profit? I thought that was a joke.

Cathy

No joke.

If you don't vote, you live with the consequences.....

[paco]

If you don't vote, you live with the consequences.....

Life-altering consequences. It will mean the difference in 1 billion Chinese children's lives. The U.S. government is waiting on this poll to decide its foreign policy for the next 20 years. If you vote the wrong way, a little kitten may die. :rolleyes:

The question, like most things in this world, is not as simple as you say. Like, "is Christianity good," or, "is Patriotism good," or "how high can you hop?" There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration that you can't just say that the U.S. foreign policy is evil. The last time I checked, Satan wasn't the president. Nor is he the president of Wal-Mart. I call Wal-Mart evil myself, and I sometimes feel guilty about shopping there, but in actuality, they do good things for people as well as all the bad. Even McDonalds does some good in this world!

[monkeyman]

Even McDonalds does some good in this world!
They inspire movies about people getting fat (supersize), thus boosting the economy

[BillyTheMountain]

The last time I checked, Satan wasn't the president. Nor is he the president of Wal-Mart.

Dooooood,

Like, what planet are YOU living on???

You are really out there, man!

Billy

[phlegm]

Have right and wrong become difficult to distinguish?

Of course. Can anyone give an example of an absolutely good business? I think, if we look hard enough, every business has some evil associated with it--someone or something was exploited for profit along the way.

So the practical question is: Assuming personal responsibility exists, where does it end, or does it? Should we shop at a certain store because they have what we want for good prices, even if what they are selling was made in a sweat shop? If we do, are we just as responsible for perpetuating the sweat shop as the owner of the sweat shop? What about the middleman that distributes the sweat shop goods?

[BillyTheMountain]

Of course. Can anyone give an example of an absolutely good business? I think, if we look hard enough, every business has some evil associated with it--someone or something was exploited for profit along the way.

So the practical question is: Assuming personal responsibility exists, where does it end, or does it? Should we shop at a certain store because they have what we want for good prices, even if what they are selling was made in a sweat shop? If we do, are we just as responsible for perpetuating the sweat shop as the owner of the sweat shop? What about the middleman that distributes the sweat shop goods?

Absolutes are not realistic.

But you have choices which minimize the deleterious impact of your own spending. Some choices make people a priority over profit, while other choices make profit a HUGE priority over people.

There is a difference between Haliburton and Mother Theresa.