- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does the word "profit" have a negative connotation?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:16 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:16 am to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:
If profit is made off exploitation, then problems occur. Profit earned through hard work is fine. Rip off profits that exploit (gouging) is the area of concern. people before profits
Well then it becomes very subjective, which is the crux of the issue.
For instance, Wal-Mart is the beacon of for-profit evil according to many. Those evil Waltons are raking in billions while they destroy mom and pop shops and force their employees to take on gov't assistance by paying peanuts.
I could make an opposite argument noting that they are the largest employer in the U.S., not to mention similar jobs in smaller establishments would pay about the same, and they provide overall cheaper goods to these same people. Wal Mart is actually the beacon of for-profit GOOD!
If Wal-Mart had no desire to seek a profit, they wouldn't be the largest provider of cheap goods in the country, thus many families would have to pay higher prices.
So which is it?
Posted on 8/18/14 at 8:21 am to rintintin
quote:
not to mention similar jobs in smaller establishments would pay about the same,
Walmart pays more, actually
and walmart offers things that mom and pop stores don't: health insurance, educational subsidies, and most importantly, promotion opportunities
quote:
If Wal-Mart had no desire to seek a profit, they wouldn't be the largest provider of cheap goods in the country, thus many families would have to pay higher prices.
exactly. that's the oft-ignored "consumer" side of the argument i was referencing
now, well-to-do libprogs will tell you that people will GLADLY pay more for goods if [insert some subjective evaluation], but they ignore the economic realities of the very people they are discussing (and in other discussions, these same libprogs will bemoan the impact that these consumers have on the general markets)
you can have a lot of this overall discussion by basically just using walmart as the talking piece
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
*ETA: if you want to rustle some jimmies with these elitist hacks, bring up how walmart is opening the door to organics for the poor
This post was edited on 8/18/14 at 8:22 am
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)