If the salesman is seeking to be apolitical: there was the case of justifying a lawyer for informing the customer about lawlessness. :biker:
To me: unethical I used to run a furniture department for a large chain. The company had one of those, call for immediate credit with Citi so you can buy shit you don't have money for. I only ever had two customers ask for it (I never ever presented it as an option) and in that case I got somebody else to take over the sale. Debt kills. I wouldn't want to have added to that misery just to bump my metrics. I also had a problem that the credit company was one of the American bail out banks.
in my opinion no but that is what capitalism is all about isn't it, grabbing everything you can at everyone elses expense
LOL. Duty in Capitalism is is to obey the law for the denial that you are free. The liberty for the law is basically that you are not free. THus there is no duty for the expense itself. I would say even for the lawyer.
Not ethical, my the standards of my personal moral code. Many people clearly deem it to be ethical, though, since it happens so much. It was something I struggled with a lot when I was working in retail sales. So many people wanted to spend thousands of dollars that they couldn't afford on flooring... as if it was a necessity and they just HAD to have new carpet or hardwood. The most common reason was that they were hosting Christmas (or easter, or thanksgiving, or a wedding rehearsal) and wanted to impress their family. If my family was going to judge me on how nice my floor looked when they came over for a meal, I'd probably not be inviting them over.
no i don't think its ethical, but that is the nature of marketing .. to manipulate people into buying something by any means necessary .. :/
In order to know you are selling something they cannot afford you would have had to run a credit check and do some calculations based on whose idea of affordability I don't know. Never thought I'd be pointing out the innocence in this mercantile exchange. It doesn't touch on ethical unless you have this information and a standard to go by. You can inversely give money to people who don't have it but that is no guarantee of responsible use. In terms of the items of mass production and consumption it is very akin to a spawning fish, many eggs hatch but a smaller portion survives to maturity. Many have economic opportunities but many do not bear fruit. Some have much less opportunity by situation of birth and location but their potentials persist and some expand their horizons, the poor we have with us always. Give if you have the impulse but withholding should be kept to yourself.
Yeah I guess.. unnecessary judgements, however accurate they might turn out to be. And, that's disregarding emotional wealth that the buyer may gain from the purchase which stands a chance of positively influencing their current financial situation.. 'tis an interesting one. Still feels weird, like having sex with a promiscuous hedonist who's running from an emotional discomfort.. is it best just to be another cog in their vehicle on the way to some form of truth?
Not surprisingly in the form of consistent synchronicity I experience on a daily basis, this example is very germane to something I have experience with. My wife was a dominatrix and viewed her profession as a form of healing. She was also a registered nurse and a political activist. Her compassion for what she saw caused her to question whether what she was doing was beneficial considering there is sex that liberates, super sex and sex that binds or supra sex, but if you asked her clients they couldn't get enough. So what is her conclusion. Give to those who ask because opportunity is what we have to avail ourselves of. As far as cog in vehicle on the way to some form of truth that is the suggestion in Krishna's conversation with Arjuna but I have a different reason. Opportunity is a game of chance but withholding as a correction except in the case of expressing apparently negative impulses which you don't want, is sure to cause damage or lessen success. Withholding food, water, air, an encouraging word. Starkly, solitary confinement in prisons drives men insane in short order.
selling IS prostitution. that doesn't have to be taken as a negative perspective on selling. it COULD be taken as a positive perspective on prostitution, which i rather suspect a large number of people, at least secretly in their heart of hearts actually do.
Wondering if any of those credit requests ever come back "NO" Are credit standards too loose? Or should we be able to put a hold on our own credit requests to curb impulsive behavior? So, if I"m at work and hit the vending machines, munching out on candy, soda and chips, then all my bus fare is gone so I have to walk home, who can I blame? We don't want to judge people. We also don't want government restraints on our behavior. So we blame the vendor, salesman its so easy.
So if I purchase an expensive floor, its deemed as a splurge. Even if the floor lasts years and enhances the homes comfort. What about a gambling junket? How is this not deemed a splurge? Goverments can sponsor casinos, and collect a big part of revenue but its deemed "good" because The Gov. gets a big rake-off? Where is the outrage against casinos? Where is the push for living wages for casino workers?
In my industry, you do good work and there's no need to sell. Word will spread. (and has, in our case.)
