[WalterBright]

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]

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]

> 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.

[the_af]

It's ridiculous to expect every single aspect of the employer-employee relationship spelled out in the contract. There are - or should be - certain societal expectations that the employer will not cause undue stress or unhappiness on the worker. This must not be negotiated in a cutthroat manner; that's such an American thing to expect (which was partly stavros point, I believe).

There are other ways to conduct business that are less exploitative without requiring a specific clause in the contract saying the employee will be treated well.

Companies lay off employees for all sorts of evil reasons unrelated to "we will go under otherwise". There's reason to believe the "great layoffs season" of a few years back was at least partly an act of collusion by big tech companies (which it then cascades to smaller companies) which had more to do with regulating down wages than with them risking going under.

Someone mentioned a few weeks back Nadella's memo explaining some big layoffs at Microsoft where he rambled about how it seemed contradictory that the company was doing so well yet they were letting go so many employees "which we've known and learned from for years" yet "the Lord works in mysterious ways" (ok, I made up this last phrase, but what he said amounted to the same). He failed to point out a single specific reason, and in particular he never mentioned "or else Microsoft's profits will go down" or whatever. I guess if Microsoft ex employees don't like it they can go join a commune!

P.S. as an example of how American this is, in some countries companies cannot simply let someone go unless they can provide legal reasons for this (bad performance beyond all fair chances, justified cost cuttings, etc). You can argue whether this is good or bad, but the point is: there is more than one way of conducting business.

[WalterBright]

> It's ridiculous to expect every single aspect of the employer-employee relationship spelled out in the contract.

It's not necessary to spell out in the contract what the legal requirements are.

The words "exploitative" and "treated well" are very fuzzy words, and everyone has a different idea of what they mean.

> for all sorts of evil reasons

Then the employee can press charges or sue.

> regulating down wages

How that works out in the real world is companies cheat on these cartels. Remember when Jobs complained that Google was violating their "no poaching" agreement? Cartels are unstable and unable to enforce their cartels, so they don't really work.

Nadella does not need to justify his layoffs. If they don't fit into Microsoft's plans, they get laid off. Microsoft does not owe them a job. BTW, I know many people who have left Microsoft for a panoply of reasons. Many went to other companies, many started their own, some succeeded, some didn't, some went back to Microsoft. It's a chaotic, dynamic system. I also know some that made incredible fortunes off of their stock options. How horrible that Microsoft minted tens of thousands of multimillionaires out of their employees! Some even into 9 figures. What a hell-hole! Microsoft is probably the worst example you could mention as an evil employer.

Dummy me that didn't get hired on by MSFT in the 1980s. Or I shoulda invested everything I had into MSFT stock. When I went to the doc for a catscan, I asked the operator to set the dial to 1987 so I could tell my foolish earlier self to buy buy buy MSFT! Sadly, the catscan machine had the side effect of wiping my memory of the trip.

> You can argue whether this is good or bad

It's bad, because it makes businesses highly reluctant to hire people, which makes the economy less prosperous.

[the_af]

> Nadella does not need to justify his layoffs.

Only if his goal is to make money at all costs, which is the stance you're taking even if you protest you are not.

> It's bad, because it makes businesses highly reluctant to hire people, which makes the economy less prosperous.

(I preempted your reply, because it wasn't the point to debate whether employee protection regulations are right or wrong; the point was to show you there are different ways of conducting a business that are not merely about making maximum money).

Again, this (and pretty much everything else you wrote in your last comment) is a very American way of doing business, precisely stavros' point.

Thankfully there are other, more respectful ways, as others have pointed out repeatedly and you insist in ignoring.

> How horrible that Microsoft minted tens of thousands of multimillionaires out of their employees!

Complete non sequitur, since you're so fond of calling out logical fallacies.

> Dummy me that didn't get hired on by MSFT in the 1980s

Yes, I'm sure you'd be a millionaire and would be spared arguing with random guys on HN. Life's a bitch.

[sfink]

> Surely you can give an actual example of a business not formed to make money?

Why? That was never claimed. The claim was that businesses can have other reasons for existing in addition to making money. Furthermore, those other reasons can be a higher priority for a particular business.

[WalterBright]

You didn't write "in addition" in what I responded to.

[stavros]

> Businesses exist to make money

This implies that this is the primary reason businesses exist. Or did you mean "that's just one reason, it might even be very low on the list of reasons, but it is one"?

Because, if you meant that, I don't know why we're arguing about meaningless pedantry and conversational sleight of hand.