Jesus, if you think the nonprofit designation means that the NFL wasn't turning a profit then you have zero idea what that designation means or how the NFL is able to manipulate the system. I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense or not. Hell most nonprofits absolutely turn a profit. And if you want to run a business striving for zero profit go for it, you'll be dead broke in a few months.
Amazon has spent most of its existence not posting a profit. They've been around for 12 years. So you're wrong there. Also most businesses are in the red for their first year at least, so if the I managed to get a business into the black within a few months, I'd be a genius. Now absolutely there's nothing wrong with making profit. As long as your model is sustainable. If Mr. Plow doesn't plan for maintenance on his plow, then he's got an unsustainable model. If a company doesn't pay its workforce a living wage, it's model is unsustainable.
Again, you clearly have never owned a business. If you think businesses strive to be as efficient as possible so that they can just beat down average Joe for an extra penny in their pocket then you have no idea what it's like to actually own a business. Business owners strive for efficiency (which is what cutting an employee is, whose worl can be done by another employee) because tomorrow isn't promised. Business owners live daily with the knowledge that their business could hit hard times tomorrow. And the best way is efficiency.
Seriously, how dare you reduce my experiences just because they don't match your own. I don't know what your resume is, but I'm going to fucking assume you haven't seen a toxic management damage a company, solely because they were trying to minimize their work force. I have.
I worked in a factory with a half automated line, because some shining example of efficiency decided to cut our production crew from 12 workers to 4. At the same time layoffs in maintenance caused massive amounts of down time, since there was no one trained on how to repair this equipment, and often faults in the process would go unnoticed for a while because the skeleton production crew wouldn't get around that faze soon enough to catch it. The result was tons and tons of scrap. I got hired on as part of the company trying put the golden egg back in the butchered goose, and had to learn how to fix equipment through hearsay and guess work.
By the way I've studied economics, business, and accounting. I was about 31 hours into an accounting degree before I changed course, so I haven't just fallen off the turnip truck. I also have friends and family who are business owners. Most of them take care of their employees too, because they aren't sociopaths.
Employees are people who make a commitment to a business and a business should be committed to them. That's basic morality, but I guess if Ayn Rand didn't write about it, it's no use to you.
Efficiency in this case was a way to lower expenses, that greatly increased expenses. It's a greedy departure from a functioning business model, to force workers to have less, so stockholders can have more.
You think its cruel ownership firing a man whose job work can be picked up by the guy next to him. I think thats efficiency and its absolute waste having 2 employees doing the work of one.
This proves just how out of touch you are. If you can force one employee to have a miserable life working 100 hours a week, and two more to be fired, you should for efficiency's sake. Fuck that. That's immoral, and unsustainable.
There are plenty of successful companies that treat their employees equitably, pay living wages, and promote a work/life balance and frankly, if they can't they shouldn't exist. Employees just need to hold them to that standard.