When that choice is made, reality splits into two different dimensions. Branes. Universes. And only under the most unusual circumstances do these universes touch.
Each initial choice dictates a subsequent choice that is entirely dependent on the first. And each choice thereafter springs directly from the second choice...and the third, etc.. It is a decision tree and the fruit of each tree will be separate and distinct/different as surely as an apple is different from a walnut. No matter how we want to whitewash it or rationalize away the consequences of these choices...like the consequences of every choice we make in our lives...the results are irrefutable and inescapable.
And every choice we make, takes one half of that decision off the table, forever. Marry this woman and you'll not marry the other. And the children you have will inherit one set of DNA that they will pass down to their offspring. Or the children you didn't have, because you married the other woman, will never exist. Ever. And the lives they lead and the deeds they do and the effects of their lives on other people spring directly from that first choice.
If a person chooses to make shoes, then every decision--materials, techniques, etc., will be in the service of maximizing the quality of the shoe. That's the definition. And with dedication and passion and perhaps a bit of luck, the money will come. Maybe not in bullion but "enough."
If a person decides to make money, every subsequent decision will be rooted in minimizing costs and maximizing profit...making money, IOW. That's the definition, that's what the individual set out to do. It is specious to suggest that there is any other motive for the decisions being made.
Can adequate shoes be made when the goal is maximizing profit? It depends on what your definition of "adequate" is--if it encompasses celastic for the toe stiffener, for instance, or GYW construction, for another. The only...repeat only...reason to use celastic or GYW is to minimize costs and maximize profit.
The only reason...simply because there are, and have been for centuries, good alternatives to such materials and techniques. Alternatives that result in objectively better made, higher quality shoes. But they cost more and are more labour intensive. And so are never to be considered except as somewhat burdensome selling points to attract customers. [Parenthetically, these Traditional techniques and materials are also usually better for the environment and the health of our children, grandchildren and the planet. And create skills, employ people at tasks they can be proud of and gives them access to useful and meaningful lives. If money is not the prime directive / motive for such firms, why would such considerations be dismissed or ignored?]
Even those individuals or firms who say to themselves" I'm going to make the best shoes I can for an affordable price...and make a living while I'm at it " are already signaling their intent to cut quality if necessary. Already qualifying their goals.
In fact, that might be a noble goal...depending on how you see and define these things. It might even be doable. But it's still about the money.
The shoemaker who chooses to make shoes will always make shoes even if there is no money in it. The "shoemaker" who chooses to make money will cut costs (and quality) even further, or find something else to do (besides shoes) if there's no significant profit in it.
edited for punctuation and clarity
Edited by DWFII - 5/10/16 at 12:34pm