cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/39109347
https://quack.social/notes/afuub1fs51g7033c
also they are more prpductive when they have more workers
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/39109347
https://quack.social/notes/afuub1fs51g7033c
also they are more prpductive when they have more workers
It’s a shitty narrow minded take
In long term they do have to bring some profit, otherwise they’re net negative to society
It’s a public service. The end goal is the service, not profit. Services help society, profit only helps investors.
Not everything in society needs to be profitable. Elder care is extremely unprofitable to society, they’ve already provided all the profit they can, now they’re just an expense on society. So why don’t we just drop them off in the middle of nowhere and let the animals eat them like a dying farm cat? It actually works out better because their kids can inherit the parents wealth without the parents using all that money to live through their retirement. The kids can take it the moment their parents are retired and immediately invest it. It’s way better for the economy because you won’t have a retirement investment that slowly dwindles until it’s gone. It’s a sudden infusion of cash that will pay way more dividends over time.
Noone says it has to be financial profit.
You did, pretty succinctly. Profit is financial profit, that’s it’s definition. I think you mean a benefit which may or may not be profitable. Social services are beneficial to society, not always profitable.
A non “financial profit” is also called a service.