What comes first, ethics or profit?

[Padawanbater2]

If you own a business, what comes first, your ability to turn a profit or the ethical treatment of your employees?

For example, if you make $.01 profit for every business day after costs, but your employees earn a living wage, is that better or worse, in your opinion, than you earning $5.00 profit for every business day, but your employees require government assistance to pay their bills? How did you reach your conclusion?

 

[Harrekin]

If you own a business, what comes first, your ability to turn a profit or the ethical treatment of your employees?

For example, if you make $.01 profit for every business day after costs, but your employees earn a living wage, is that better or worse, in your opinion, than you earning $5.00 profit for every business day, but your employees require government assistance to pay their bills? How did you reach your conclusion?

You're missing the reality of it, why own and run a business to pay for the employees and earn nothing yourself?

You're confusing business with charity or you're simply talking in unrealistic extremes.

Pro-tip: In some businesses you can make a profit and still pay your employees well, some are high turnover, low margin and can't afford it.

 

[bu$hleaguer]

If you're making a profit already, then ethics. But business is business, first you need profit to keep the business open.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You're missing the reality of it, why own and run a business to pay for the employees and earn nothing yourself?

You're confusing business with charity or you're simply talking in unrealistic extremes.

Pro-tip: In some businesses you can make a profit and still pay your employees well, some are high turnover, low margin and can't afford it.

I'm using an extreme hypothetical to understand viewpoints. It's not going to surprise me if this too toes party lines

If you're making a profit already, then ethics. But business is business, first you need profit to keep the business open.

Yeah, that was the point of the poll, you have to pick one over the other

 

[bu$hleaguer]

Yeah, that was the point of the poll, you have to pick one over the other

Then profit, because you can't have a business without it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Then profit, because you can't have a business without it.

In the example in the OP, $.01 is your profit, so you're essentially breaking even while remaining ethical

Are you saying you believe it's better to turn a $5.00 profit instead even though your employees require government assistance to pay their bills?

 

[NewtoMJ]

If you own a business, what comes first, your ability to turn a profit or the ethical treatment of your employees?

For example, if you make $.01 profit for every business day after costs, but your employees earn a living wage, is that better or worse, in your opinion, than you earning $5.00 profit for every business day, but your employees require government assistance to pay their bills? How did you reach your conclusion?

Is the .01 after I've already paid myself? Is the cost to grow the business coming from the profit?

 

[bu$hleaguer]

In the example in the OP, $.01 is your profit, so you're essentially breaking even while remaining ethical

Are you saying you believe it's better to turn a $5.00 profit instead even though your employees require government assistance to pay their bills?

No, not at all. If you're making $.01 a day, you're making like $2.60 profit a year. You're in the black. At that point you're just focused on the happiness of your employees and trying to make that profit higher.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The $.02 & $5.00 were just arbitrary numbers used to symbolize "low profits" & "high profits", so forget the actual numbers

I'm just wondering if low profits and ethical treatment is more important to you/better than high profits and unethical treatment

 

[bu$hleaguer]

The $.02 & $5.00 were just arbitrary numbers used to symbolize "low profits" & "high profits", so forget the actual numbers

I'm just wondering if low profits and ethical treatment is more important to you/better than high profits and unethical treatment

You're asking a skewed question. In business as in the real world, you look out for number 1 first. The same way you put your own oxygen mask on on a crashing plane before you assist a child with theirs. I think you should just ask "are you into treating others unethically?" because only an asshole would not try to have their business succeed first and foremost. They spent a fuck ton of cash on opening that business before they even brought in a dime anyways.

 

[tightpockt]

Profile is measurable. Ethics are subjective. This question is a little silly being as profit is the #1 priority for a business, it's the whole reason they're 'in business'. Pada seems to think that a business is responsible for its employees and their quality of life. Failing that he thinks that the government is responsible for your quality of life. It comes across as very 'give me, give me, give me' without offering anything in return. A business is not your parents. They don't feel responsible for your well being.
I maintain that the only person responsible for your finances is the individual.

 

[Rob Roy]

The thread asks a question that is suggestive of a false dichotomy.

 

[spandy]

If any one of my employees wants more than their agreed upon wage, then they must go above and beyond their original work agreement. If all they do is show up and do their job as expected, then they will be paid their agreed upon wage and then anything left over goes to my family. Number 1 is always gonna be Number 1. Go start your own business if you don't like it.



How about on a bad year, what if I lose money? Do you think my employees are gonna pay the power bill for me? You think they will make the property payment and tax payments for the building we work out of? Put more tools and materials on the tables and shelves? Fuck no, they will leave and go get work elsewhere immediately. I'd be fucked and all alone in paying for my bills. I'm sure they would feel bad, but no money would come our way. Only if they assumed ownership could I get money out of them, and then they would be owners, not employees.

But oh shit, if someone works a mere 40 hours a week and can't pay for The Dream, then its gotta be the fault of their employer and they should just pony the fuck up and pay MOAR.

 

[schuylaar]

You're missing the reality of it, why own and run a business to pay for the employees and earn nothing yourself?

You're confusing business with charity or you're simply talking in unrealistic extremes.

Pro-tip: In some businesses you can make a profit and still pay your employees well, some are high turnover, low margin and can't afford it.

i wonder if McD, walmart have that issue..a profit? and yet they suggest a typical hourly should work 80 hours and apply for SNAP to make ends meet..

 

[Rob Roy]

i wonder if McD, walmart have that issue..a profit? and yet they suggest a typical hourly should work 80 hours and apply for SNAP to make ends meet..

Funny on one hand you think government is the cure to everything, then when a large corporation which is enabled, aided and abetted by government does something you dislike, you fail to see that MORE government is a root cause of problems, and not a solution.

 

[UncleBuck]

If any one of my employees wants more than their agreed upon wage, then they must go above and beyond their original work agreement. If all they do is show up and do their job as expected, then they will be paid their agreed upon wage and then anything left over goes to my family. Number 1 is always gonna be Number 1. Go start your own business if you don't like it.



How about on a bad year, what if I lose money? Do you think my employees are gonna pay the power bill for me? You think they will make the property payment and tax payments for the building we work out of? Put more tools and materials on the tables and shelves? Fuck no, they will leave and go get work elsewhere immediately. I'd be fucked and all alone in paying for my bills. I'm sure they would feel bad, but no money would come our way. Only if they assumed ownership could I get money out of them, and then they would be owners, not employees.

But oh shit, if someone works a mere 40 hours a week and can't pay for The Dream, then its gotta be the fault of their employer and they should just pony the fuck up and pay MOAR.

all that bitterness has to be due to erectile dysfunction.

 

[UncleBuck]

Funny on one hand you think government is the cure to everything, then when a large corporation which is enabled, aided and abetted by government does something you dislike, you fail to see that MORE government is a root cause of problems, and not a solution.

she's pointing to mcdonald's as the problem, dumbass.

 

[Rob Roy]

all that bitterness has to be due to erectile dysfunction.

Just for you and for old times sake...

 

[Rob Roy]

she's pointing to mcdonald's as the problem, dumbass.

I know. My point went over your head. Root causes etc. I'm gonna let this one slide though and just claim I'm smarter than you and let you figure it out or chase your tail for awhile.

 

[schuylaar]

she's pointing to mcdonald's as the problem, dumbass.

+rep