What Price Profits?

My comments yesterday on consumer privacy violations have generated some interesting responses. While I understand and share Nathan's frustration with the apparent valuation of profit above everything else (that's what I'm reading in to his comment, and I'll slither corrected if I'm wrong about it), I also appreciate Mama Liberty's brief but powerful defense of profit and the free market.

That means, of course, I'm going to slither in here and toss my opinions around some.

Nathan said, in part, "And look for businesses, that like us, are concerned about privacy and liberty more than profits." And Mama Liberty began her response with, "'Profits' are NOT the problem here. Profit is the driving force of the market."

I'd guess that almost all individuals who didn't blindly wander to this blog understand that profit is the essential, driving force of the market. Absent a cash benefit to the investment, a company will go out of business; profits help keep the company going and improving, and are the means by which its owner(s) support themselves and families (if any). Taken strictly as a concept, then, profit is morally neutral -- it can come from good circumstances (voluntary exchange of goods or service) or bad (theft or intentional fraud).

But that doesn't mean that other values/goals have to be absent in the pursuit of profit -- and I think that's what Nathan meant. It so happens that I'm friends with the CEO of a major food company. He started the company because he saw a niche in the market that wasn't being met -- one that was important to him. He wanted to make money, sure, but he also wanted to do that in a specific way -- creating a positive environment for all his employees and for each customer. I've been in two or three of his stores -- including one of the worst performers in the country, according to him -- and I can attest that his model works. Each of the stores was clean, very well (and beautifully) stocked, and staffed with very friendly, knowledgeable people. It's a delight to shop there. I'm certainly not alone in liking his stores -- the company's profits continue to increase (in a hugely competitive market with a razor-thin profit margin), and his company is expanding, both here and in Europe.

It's also a stark contrast to almost every WalMart I've been in, which typically has at least one of the following problems: messy (or no) stock on shelves; hard-to-find and/or unhelpful staff; or checkout clerks with the intellectual skills/personality of a rutabaga. (To be fair, I'll disclose that I have relatives who worked in Wal-Mart, and some may still do so for all I know; I also became friends with a local Wal-Mart employee -- but he was atypical in many respects.) I think these conditions are the result of corporate attitudes filtering down -- attitudes that suggest they don't care much about their employees, or their customers' overall shopping experiences. The numerous lawsuits employees are launching against Wal-Mart supports that explanation ... and while I'm highly suspicious of the discrimination suits, one the Boston Globe covered, on Wal-Mart's computers being programmed to shave time off of employees' hours isn't as easily set aside.

Mama Liberty is right that our shopping dollars are our "votes" in the market. Unfortunately, many people appear to value only price. That's how W-M came to be the colossus it is. I won't pretend price isn't important -- it is! -- but if a person wants to shop at a place that doesn't strip all who enter its doors of some measure of dignity, that is oriented toward genuine, caring customer service instead of simply getting more cash out of shoppers' pockets, and that respects customer privacy, those attributes need to become part of the shopping decision-making. We also need to tell stores what they're doing well, and where they could do better. A smart store manager or executive will lap up that information and put it to good use.

Many in the RKBA movement have done very well with this in states where businesses have the discretion to allow firearms on their property or not. CASPIAN, in both its activism areas of supermarket "loyalty" cards and RFID tagging of consumer items, has also been successful. I'm a very loyal and satisfied customer of two companies through their web sites, because they give great customer service and don't violate my privacy -- Penzeys Spices and King Arthur Flour.

So yes, profit is "king", but that doesn't mean things like excellent customer service, treating employees well, or other goals/values have to be entirely disregarded. For successful companies, these are queens, princes, and princesses -- and they can make all the difference in one's shopping experience, and the success or failure of a company. (The restaurant industry is a very good example of this dynamic.)

There are other points I'd love to address but I need to see to the snolfs' breakfasts, and get going on trip preparations. Just today and tomorrow left! :) Perhaps some other time ... But I will add a brief bit to address something else Mama Liberty wrote, which was: "Our 'take home' paycheck is OUR 'profit'."

I imagine she was in a hurry as she wrote, because I know she knows that isn't accurate ... All the money we earn through a job is ours. That various levels of government steal bits and pieces doesn't change that reality. "Take home pay" -- for those who have jobs with that kind of pay structure -- is what the state, in its wonderful magnanimosity, allows its worker drones to keep. But that topic -- and the related one of finding income sources that reduce or eliminate the state from the equation -- is best left for another time.