Ship of Fools: Ethical produce: the laborer is worthy of his pay

Thread: Ethical produce: the laborer is worthy of his pay Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023100

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I want to ensure that the workers who harvest the foods that I eat are treated fairly and paid a decent wage.

I can buy fair trade for certain products harvested in developing countries -- sugar, tea, chocolate.

If I can't buy fair trade, I can buy organic, and at least know that the agricultural workers weren't exposed to noxious chemicals.

But organic doesn't mean that the agricultural workers are being treated fairly and paid a decent wage. Even buying at the farmer's market doesn't mean that -- buying at the farmer's market means better income, but doesn't guarantee anything about the people who actually picked the peaches or blueberries or asparagus.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers has done a lot to protect the workers who pick the tomatoes that you get on burgers and tacos at fast-food restaurants.

But that doesn't help me when I'm buying produce for my family. I know that fair trade doesn't apply to produce grown and picked in the developed world, because (in theory anyway) we have laws to protect workers. But you don't have to read much to know that the laws don't work particularly well, and that workers are often abused, and often paid less than is legally allowed.

So what does an ordinary consumer do? Deuteronomy 24:14 says, "Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns." How do you buy produce without taking advantage of the workers?

Would you be willing to pay more for produce if you knew that the workers were treated well and paid well?

[ 27. May 2012, 23:23: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Do you know, I was only thinking about this as well this morning. I would like to be an 'ethical consumer' and would like to believe that it is possible to buy ethically. Sadly in recent years I have been less and less convinced that things like fairtrade actually do anything appreciable - they're primarily a marketing scheme, in my opinion, with marginal positive impacts on suppliers.

And I'm fairly cynical now about believing that buying more expensive products from more 'ethical' brands is necessarily much better than the cheaper versions from the cheapo supermarkets. From what I've read, there is no guarantee that they're not produced in exactly the same places - just with one more expensive label than the other.

I believe that this system is inherently unfair and unsustainable and cannot last. The idea that we can 'consume people out of poverty' is utterly wrong. But a big part of this is that we've mislaid our ability to distinguish our 'needs' from our 'wants' and we've lost any real handle on what things should cost and their importance.

The other day I bought a packet of paracetamol which cost 23p. OK, I appreciate this is hardly a miracle or important medicine, but what value is there is anything that costs so little? (I'm not sure what that is in $US, but something like $0.50).

I'm sorry to waffle @Josephine - but I don't think it is really a choice between a lower-priced unethical product and a more expensive ethical one. By couching our ethical choices in the language of consumption we've already added to the problem - although I also acknowledge that suddenly stopping consumption would also cause tremendous trauma for many who depend on it.

I guess the truth is that I'm increasingly convinced we're hurtling towards a cliff economically, so changing our purchasing habits now will make no difference.

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :

It seems connected to the largest issue societies like ours have, which is how low the floor is for the "least of these". Farm labor is a job that traditionally gets taken by folks who don't have a lot of options or a lot of protection--what's available to them is the minimal amount of what's considered decent.

Things get stickier when we throw in immigration issues--there are a lot of folks advocating for and implementing practices aimed at encouraging "self-deportation" by making it impossible for folks without citizenship or papers to sustain themselves here.

I don't honestly know what the solution is, beyond local opportunities that aren't universal. It might be a good thing for churches or other groups with social justice bents to make noise about--awareness being the first step, and not many folks being aware. At the farmer's markets in my community, there are vendors from places that offer fair wages and more of a collective model, but it's true that this isn't typically displayed as one of the selling points and also true that the produce costs a bit more. I reckon an argument could be made for growing one's own stuff and trading, but I don't honestly know if the macro solution to a crap job situation is to do things which would take away even the crap job.

Hmm...

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I believe that this system is inherently unfair and unsustainable and cannot last. The idea that we can 'consume people out of poverty' is utterly wrong. But a big part of this is that we've mislaid our ability to distinguish our 'needs' from our 'wants' and we've lost any real handle on what things should cost and their importance.

The other day I bought a packet of paracetamol which cost 23p. OK, I appreciate this is hardly a miracle or important medicine, but what value is there is anything that costs so little? (I'm not sure what that is in $US, but something like $0.50).

I'm sorry to waffle @Josephine - but I don't think it is really a choice between a lower-priced unethical product and a more expensive ethical one. By couching our ethical choices in the language of consumption we've already added to the problem - although I also acknowledge that suddenly stopping consumption would also cause tremendous trauma for many who depend on it.

I guess the truth is that I'm increasingly convinced we're hurtling towards a cliff economically, so changing our purchasing habits now will make no difference.

Let's try and separate out two separate issues; one is ecological sustainability - which is not really the topic of this thread - and the other is economic sustainability. As far as that is concerned, if the Euro-fundamentalists who bought the Euro to birth hadn't, the world economy would now be recovering nicely, if slowly, from the trip of 2008. And that was only so large because we had been so good at postponing the usual booms and busts of economic activity that we've seen ALL down history. There is no reason to believe from first principles that the steady economic growth that we've seen even in Africa lately, let along China, where HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS have been raised from poverty by the free market, is not sustainable till we see most absolute poverty removed from the world. Unfortunately in the short term a lot of overpaid Westerners are finding that their jobs don't make sense in their countries - but that's because the unjust habits of the past are being reversed. There have always been victims of economic change: wheelwrights, horse breeders, coppersmiths, blacksmiths and document copiers (as to be seen in Russian novels) no longer exist. In time things do work out - and noone has yet to demonstrate a real alternative. It's very sweet to believe 'there must be a better way to run the economy', as it is sweet to believe 'we can cure all diseases' - but noone has yet achieved either. Having 'faith' in either is, IMNSHO, dangerous self-delusion. If you want to add to Kenneth Copeland's obscene riches in the hope that all diseases will be healed as a result you can - but don't expect me to. Similarly don't make yourself look stupid believing there is a real alternative economic model. Of course at the margins things can be tweaked - but the core concept 'free exchange is no robbery' has served us well overall.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

@Ender's Shadow - There is every reason to believe that economic development is unsustainable. The rest of your post is therefore simple assertion. Just stating things does not make them true, you know.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I want to ensure that the workers who harvest the foods that I eat are treated fairly and paid a decent wage.

I can buy fair trade for certain products harvested in developing countries -- sugar, tea, chocolate.

If I can't buy fair trade, I can buy organic, and at least know that the agricultural workers weren't exposed to noxious chemicals.

I think buying organic and locally is a good strategy. However, buying organic food from malaria zones is, IMHO, ethically questionable. As our appetite for organic foods and organic cotton has influenced African agriculture, for example, it has meant reversing progress previously made in eradicating malaria-prone mosquitos, rising to increased deaths. I'm very much in favor of buying African products-- but not organic. Although I'm also hopefully that the recent progress toward a malaria vaccine will make even that point moot.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
@Ender's Shadow - There is every reason to believe that economic development is unsustainable. The rest of your post is therefore simple assertion. Just stating things does not make them true, you know.

No - it's far more complex than that. It was commonly held in the Victorian era that London would have to stop its growth because the amount of horse manure on the streets would become an insoluble problem. An alternative emerged. We face two possible futures:

1) The present trajectory does prove to be unsustainable and we end up in an ecological crisis.

2) The present trajectory is saved because of technological changes that radically reduce the 'environmental footprint' of our civilisation.

Remember that the widespread beliefs at various times during the last 50 years that the present economy would collapse because of 'X'? In each case this pessimism was unjustified.

The challenge for us in the comfortable West is to act in a way that doesn't have the effect of pulling up the ladder that is presently allowing probably a BILLION people to climb their way out of poverty. It is currently working well. Messing with market incentives can do this; we benefit a minority at the cost of the majority. It is a fundamental feature of human society that those whose lives are getting steadily better don't make much noise compared with those who are losing out. The effect is to bias the political process against the things that benefit the majority. Consider the outcome if railways had been banned because of the negative impact on stage coach operators and canal companies. [Eek!]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Consider the outcome if railways had been banned because of the negative impact on stage coach operators and canal companies.

But at this point, I don't particularly care how I get to point B from point A -- either rail or stage coach is fine with me. But I do not want to be served on either by workers who are beaten, poisoned, and kept in conditions of de facto slavery.

I do not think that the mistreatment of workers is a necessary condition of economic progress. I think that, in an unregulated market, it may well be an inevitable condition. I'd much prefer that we regulate the labor market in such a way that abuse of workers is prohibited, and that the regulations would be strictly enforced.

But the situation I prefer is not the situation that exists. I can't opt out of the situation -- I need to buy food. I want to buy food from producers who treat their workers the way I would want to be treated if I were harvesting produce. For me, knowing that the workers who produce my food are treated fairly has a real value. It's not hypothetical. I'm willing to take my business to the producers who do that. I know that I might have to pay more to get what I want. But that's how the market works, right? Producers differentiate themselves from their competitors to gain a competitive advantage. Some producers compete on price alone, and don't care much for quality. Some producers compete on other attributes.

An attribute I care about is the treatment of workers. I don't think I'm the only one who cares about that. I just don't know how to identify the producers who are selling what I want to buy.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Sure - that's fine for you Josephine, but the problem comes when you start imposing that choice on the rest of the community. Which is the argument that the unions in America try to make to justify their opposition to free trade - aka - let's pull the ladder up after us. To require people on minimum wage to pay more for their food is not a good way forward IMHO - YMMV.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sure - that's fine for you Josephine, but the problem comes when you start imposing that choice on the rest of the community.

I haven't said anything about imposing anything on anyone, have I? I asked how I can find food grown by farmers who treat their field workers well.

quote:
To require people on minimum wage to pay more for their food is not a good way forward IMHO - YMMV.

I think it's a good way forward to investigate and prosecute de facto slavery of agricultural workers. If that increases the cost of food to the point that people on minimum wage can't afford to buy adequate food, then the minimum wage is inadequate, and needs to be increased.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There is no reason to believe from first principles that the steady economic growth that we've seen even in Africa lately, let along China, where HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS have been raised from poverty by the free market

Free market? Is that what China has? Good to know. I'm opposed to unbridled free trade. However, if what China has can be called free trade, then I'm in favor of free trade. [Big Grin]

Why is it called protectionism when the United States wants to do the same thing?

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I find that if I start thinking about this issue in too much of a "macro" way my head starts to explode...so I'm left with the "As for me and my house..." option.

During the growing season we buy as much of our produce as we can directly from our (usually Amish) neighbors, and also buy their canned goods to use as part of our winter fruit and veg stores; it helps them and keeps money in our community, and we can actually see our food growing out in
the field. What we can't procure that way, we try to buy from our food cooperative, or at very least the organic offerings from the local supermarket.

As far as advocacy of fairly traded/safe/sustainable food...I do my share of sending letters to legislators and passing along information to others via Facebook; definitely a secondary pursuit, but it may raise others' consciousness even in a small way.

It's not saving the world, but it's helping our immediate neighbors while giving a one-fingered salute to Big Ag. And that's usually all I can manage on a good day.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sure - that's fine for you Josephine, but the problem comes when you start imposing that choice on the rest of the community. Which is the argument that the unions in America try to make to justify their opposition to free trade - aka - let's pull the ladder up after us. To require people on minimum wage to pay more for their food is not a good way forward IMHO - YMMV.

Trade unions also argue that what we have ourselves we wish for others. Fairer wages here at home would mean fewer people trying to live on minimum wage. Remember when minimum wage was only for the most basic, casual jobs, not for heads of households? And it's not like minimum wage buys much anyway. If you really want to help those who are trying to raise a family on minimum wage, get them to sign union cards. OliviaG

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Would you be willing to pay more for produce if you knew that the workers were treated well and paid well?

Yes.

There are many contexts, not just this one, where I'm amazed and disturbed at how proposals to fix something are met with horrified cries of "but it will cost more!".

Exactly. That's the whole point. That's exactly the proof that you and I have been getting away with something cheap and convenient by shifting the negative side off onto someone else or somewhere else. Whether it's goods that don't accurately reflect their real cost or dumping gaseous waste into the atmosphere for free, the fact that doing the right thing will cost more is emphatically NOT a decent reason for not doing it.

The problem is usually getting clear enough information, because the last thing that most people selling us stuff want is for us to be thinking about these issues. One of the few cases I can think of where I get decent information is that I can easily buy my more expensive free range eggs in preference to cheaper cage eggs, because there are laws here that positively require the information to be presented in supermarkets. But so much information about what you're buying and where it came from is buried.

[ 28. May 2012, 00:53: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But so much information about what you're buying and where it came from is buried.

If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction? So any place there's missing information, the market isn't really free.

And it drives me crazy how hard it is to get information on the foods we buy and eat. If they'd been telling us all along that the ground beef we were buying had 15% "finely textured ammoniated lean beef trimmings" then maybe there wouldn't have been a huge flap about pink slime. People were upset because they felt like they'd been duped. Instead of making it a secret, they could have explained that meat with "hygienically treated beef trimmings" was lower in fat and less likely to contain harmful bacteria than other ground beef products. I don't know if they could have sold it that way or not -- but that's the point, isn't it? If they tell us what they're selling us, we can decide whether we want to buy it or not.

So what if there was a little sign next to the tomatoes at the grocery store that said, "To provide you the lowest possible price, these tomatoes were harvested by field workers who are forced to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, and paid the same rate per pound for the tomatoes now that they were paid in 1982; they are not provided toilet facilities, and there is no shade anywhere near the fields," and another display of tomatoes had a sign that said, "These tomatoes were harvested by field workers who are paid at least the legal minimum wage. They are provided sanitary toilet facilities with water for washing, and there is a covered picnic area for breaks and meals."

Then I could choose what mattered to me. I could vote with my dollars. Ender's Shadow, would you have a problem with that?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

You almost need that. I saw somebody selling Chiquita bananas at a farmer's market. Banana plantations By the Big Lake are few and far between. By few and far between, I mean nonexistent. If I remember correctly, the vendor might have been advertising the bananas as Chiquita bananas.

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :

An article in my local paper about labor issues in agriculture right now:

Labor shortage in agriculture

As one of the folks in the comments section pointed out, harvesting produce isn't "work that no one will do, it's work no one will do for Third World pay." Rather than sulking that we can no longer find enough exploitable people, it really does seem like it may be time to stop exploiting people.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But so much information about what you're buying and where it came from is buried.
If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction? So any place there's missing information, the market isn't really free.

And for the rest of the post for that matter.

I think the last thing many sellers want is a market that actually lives up to economic theory.

We do also have here requirements to show country of origin on fresh produce. Which enables me to buy things grown in Australia (or New Zealand for kiwifruit) and not Peruvian asparagus or Italian kiwifruit or American oranges. Not because I have something against foreigners, but because I object to the notion that seasonal foods should be provided to us all-year-round by expending fuel to get them to us here from elsewhere on the planet.

(I'll buy your American pomegranates as an occasional treat because I'm yet to see evidence of local ones in the supermarket. Should perhaps go looking at the farmers' market instead... but for the other foods I've mentioned, Australian/NZ versions are readily available at the appropriate time of year.)

The system is far from perfect, however. I was mightily annoyed one time to discover that I had bought kiwifruit with Italian stickers on them, when the main sign had said New Zealand, and I've seen one of the current affairs shows demonstrate that errors/sloppiness like that can be quite common without enough in the way of penalties to provide an incentive to take more care.

[ 28. May 2012, 03:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
An article in my local paper about labor issues in agriculture right now:

Labor shortage in agriculture

As one of the folks in the comments section pointed out, harvesting produce isn't "work that no one will do, it's work no one will do for Third World pay." Rather than sulking that we can no longer find enough exploitable people, it really does seem like it may be time to stop exploiting people.

De facto slave labor from private prisons to save the daaaaayyy!

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

One way to ensure better wages is to get rid of agreements such as NAFTA trade tariffs and the restrictions within the EU that make it so expensive for developing countries to trade with the developed world.

That would mean the commodities prices would actually guarantee the farmers an income for that year, instead of hiding costs under the guise of trade tariffs.

However, I use the principle of LOAF when buying (and as a believer in the free market I make these choices out of ethical concern):

Buy LOCAL
If not, then buy ORGANIC
If not then ANIMAL Friendly
If not then FAIRTRADE

However, I would suggest that there are other good schemes besides Fairtrade - Rainforest Alliance etc.

Part of our problem is that we expect to be able to so much more with our income. We are spending proportionately less of our income on food and more on other things - leisure, home improvements, transport etc - which means we expect lower prices to compensate. I'm looking for the stats at the moment, but I think in the UK in 1913 40% of household income was spent on food, compared to around 25% now.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Yes, Josephine, I don't have a problem with enforcing greater labelling on supermarkets.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Trade unions also argue that what we have ourselves we wish for others. Fairer wages here at home would mean fewer people trying to live on minimum wage.

Indeed there would be, they'd be unemployed.

The core problem is that we have released the a new technology into the world on a large scale called 'free trade'. The effect of this at an international level is to raise hundreds of millions from absolute poverty. But unfortunately there is a price to pay, by those whose employment patterns have been disrupted by this new technology. Yes, it's very painful for those victims, but we need to balance their status with the massive improvement elsewhere. And attempting economic autarky doesn't work in the long term.

Actually there is a pond difference here. In the UK, welfare payments for people with secure housing are just about adequate - especially outside London. They are certainly well above the $2 a day or less that many of the people who have been raised from poverty were previously surviving on.

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

Remember when minimum wage was only for the most basic, casual jobs, not for heads of households? And it's not like minimum wage buys much anyway. If you really want to help those who are trying to raise a family on minimum wage, get them to sign union cards. OliviaG

Let's take an example of the consequences of this policy. The plasters of Smallville get together and decide that they won't work for less than $X an hour. One of three things will happen:

a) Some people will pay up - good result
b) Some people will import plasterers from Bigtown. They will use petrol to get to Smallville. Some plasters in Smallville won't get a job that week.
c) Some people will do their own plastering
d) Some owner occupiers will survive without plastering
e) Some landlords won't replaster their premises, so tenants will be left with worse accommodation; alternatively the tenants will be faced with rent increases to pay for the plastering.

The only stable solution is to raise the total demand for labour to the point where wages in all sectors become 'fair'. This appears to be happening now in China (double digit percentage wage rises in an economy with less than 4% inflation), and there are strong suggestions that a lot of manufacturing will actually be returning to the West as its relative advantage fades. The problem is that it's nice to believe there is an easy alternative, and populists have ridden that belief since forever, but in practice it ends in tears.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction?

Absolutely. I'm all in favour of there being as much information available to consumers as possible. It's when people move beyond that to saying "it should be illegal to achieve low food prices through low wages" that I'm less enthusiastic.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
One way to ensure better wages is to get rid of agreements such as NAFTA trade tariffs and the restrictions within the EU that make it so expensive for developing countries to trade with the developed world.

That would mean the commodities prices would actually guarantee the farmers an income for that year, instead of hiding costs under the guise of trade tariffs.

Not sure that's a guarantee, but tariff removal and less selfishnessn in the EU would be an improvement.

quote:

However, I use the principle of LOAF when buying (and as a believer in the free market I make these choices out of ethical concern):

Buy LOCAL
If not, then buy ORGANIC
If not then ANIMAL Friendly
If not then FAIRTRADE

However, I would suggest that there are other good schemes besides Fairtrade - Rainforest Alliance etc.

LOAF is pretty good but the 'Buy Local' call can ignore the cost of energy used (and Co2 produced)in Britain's lousy climate to produce high-value fruit and veg out of season. Then again, you have to compare that to the cost of transport, which is diddly-squat for a ship, but a small fortune for airfreight.

quote:

Part of our problem is that we expect to be able to so much more with our income. We are spending proportionately less of our income on food and more on other things - leisure, home improvements, transport etc - which means we expect lower prices to compensate. I'm looking for the stats at the moment, but I think in the UK in 1913 40% of household income was spent on food, compared to around 25% now.

Apart from home improvements we are besotted with buying our homes, hardly surprising when it is promote by successsive governments over renting. That and travelling further to work (in our own cars) has swallowed up a lot of the real wage increases.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from home improvements we are besotted with buying our homes, hardly surprising when it is promote by successsive governments over renting.

Given that anyone who bought before 2000 is still sitting on an enormous capital gain, over the past 60 years it has been one of the few defences against inflation, and that the private rented sector was largely destroyed by the rent controls between 1945 and 1985, it's no surprise that anyone who can has bought their own home. Given the silly levels of immigration* and population growth and the inability of the system to build more housing, it seems likely to be a continuing winner...
------
*250,000 people a year - a city the size of Derby - every year? That's SILLY...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
------
*250,000 people a year - a city the size of Derby - every year? That's SILLY...

Why should I want to know anything about Derby? In any event it's a misleading figure, designed to get the Daily Mail reading and Radio 2 lunchtime show listening classes frothing at the mouth; after all, somebody else must be to blame. Any housing shortage must also take acount of the 930,000 homes that are unoccupied (3,970 of which are in Derby), for one reason or another.

Here are some figures from ONS. Annual net migration to the UK in 2010 was indeed an all-time high of 252,000 but the main driver, as stated, was a reduction in emigration (ie, Brits leaving to live elsewhere).

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I'm looking for the stats at the moment, but I think in the UK in 1913 40% of household income was spent on food, compared to around 25% now.

I don't know the stats for this either, but given that the number of households with only one wage earner was much higher in 1913 than it is now I would think it fair to assume that if your guesstimate is correct food accounts for a larger proportion of a single wage now than it did a century ago, or at least is around the same.

Even if you found the evidence to support your data, the number of wage earners per family would have to be taken into account.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I'm looking for the stats at the moment, but I think in the UK in 1913 40% of household income was spent on food, compared to around 25% now.
I don't know the stats for this either, but given that the number of households with only one wage earner was much higher in 1913 than it is now I would think it fair to assume that if your guesstimate is correct food accounts for a larger proportion of a single wage now than it did a century ago, or at least is around the same.

Even if you found the evidence to support your data, the number of wage earners per family would have to be taken into account.

I WILL find these stats, but the figures represent a real terms comparison. In other words, they represent the equivalent amounts now if spent then. In real terms we spend less on on food now than people did 100 years ago,

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
the number of households with only one wage earner was much higher in 1913 than it is now

Are you sure of this? I was under the impression that women in working-class households were very likely to work even if they were mothers, and if there were any children of working age, their wages would go into the household pot rather than being considered 'theirs'.

Middle-class wives may not have worked but I think they comprised a much smaller proportion of society than today.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

My first job as a social worker was with the health department providing services to migrant workers who picked tomatoes and lettuce. Of course, the growers pretended that they used high school students on summer break, etc. and we had to actually sneak out to the fields and follow the workers back to their hidden housing provided by the growers--it was a slum.

At any rate, I learned which growers treated their workers the worst and now am able to tell folks in my area which brands to avoid.

It would take some digging around for the average person to figure out the same information. Some grocery chains have a bad reputation when it comes to buying produce from unscrupluous growers.

I, too, buy organic in the hopes that at least the workers will have not had to suffer the consequences of long-term exposure to pesticides.

I don't have the stomach to eat food that puts people who provide me that food at risk of (on a great scale) cancer and other life-threatening issues.

The farm workers union has good information, but I would suggest that anyone who wants their food not to have a negative influence on the people who produce it do as much google searching as it takes to figure out what is the best policy in their area.

Buying locally is best if you actually know the farmer and his practices. I can tell you from experience that there is a brand of tomato sold locally where I live that has a down-home looking lable and has had ads that imply it's just another good old family business. But they are the worst of the lot when it comes to the treatment of their workers.

Oh, and folks might be interested in Robert Coles book on migrant children which was part of his Child in Crisis series. It was written years ago, but things have not changed much.

And yes, I know that organic foods (and sometimes local foods) cost more. I live on a fairly tight budget and would love to put saving money at the top of my food buying priorities. But after what I have seen, I can't find it in my heart to ignore the plight of those who help get the food to me.

Of course, others may have different priorites or needs that require a different approach. I would hope that others, like Josephine, would ask about how their food is produced with the intention of putting a plan into action.

But I don't know everyone's circumstances and so I can't say more than I hope folks will at least do some investigating.

sabine

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from home improvements we are besotted with buying our homes, hardly surprising when it is promote by successsive governments over renting.
Given that anyone who bought before 2000 is still sitting on an enormous capital gain, over the past 60 years it has been one of the few defences against inflation...

'Defence against inflation', presumably, in the sense that the price of a home- which is in the end really another word for shelter- has risen rather more steeply than either wages or the price of (most if not all) other basic necessities. Good news if you own a home: bad news if you don't, but need one.

[ 28. May 2012, 14:27: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction?
Absolutely. I'm all in favour of there being as much information available to consumers as possible. It's when people move beyond that to saying "it should be illegal to achieve low food prices through low wages" that I'm less enthusiastic.

Two follow-up questions.

First, is there any way to ensure that consumers who want it can get information about pay and working conditions for agricultural workers, when producers have strong incentives to hide it?

Second, how low are you okay with agricultural wages going? Are you opposed to minimum wage generally, or just for agricultural workers?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:

However, I use the principle of LOAF when buying (and as a believer in the free market I make these choices out of ethical concern):

Buy LOCAL
If not, then buy ORGANIC
If not then ANIMAL Friendly
If not then FAIRTRADE

The ethics of Organic have to be considered on a case-by-case, evidenced-based basis. What, for instance, is ethical about buying "organic" dairy produce when that, in practice, means dairy produce from cows who have been treated with "homeopathy" (ie sugar pills) for an infection for which I would want to receive anti-biotics. That's cruel and stupid.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:
the number of households with only one wage earner was much higher in 1913 than it is now
Are you sure of this? I was under the impression that women in working-class households were very likely to work even if they were mothers, and if there were any children of working age, their wages would go into the household pot rather than being considered 'theirs'.

Middle-class wives may not have worked but I think they comprised a much smaller proportion of society than today.

My bad. The increase is not as high as I assumed.

In the early 1950s there were about 1.5 workers per household, now it is about 1.63*. During WWI women entered jobs that had been traditionally a masculine preserve. There has been an increase in wage earners per household over the last century though.

* The statistics are, however, from different sources, so there's some room for flexibility on their interpretation.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
but the problem comes when you start imposing that choice on the rest of the community

WTF? Imposing choice? I would have thought lack of choice more an imposition.
I would prefer the people producing what I use to be treated fairly. To have decent working conditions and wages. I prefer to have that choice, you may opt out. How is this an imposition?
Funny, most in this discussion wear labels which proclaim we care about our fellow humans. And we argue whether they should be treated fairly?
Think on this as well, what is the cause of most foodborne illness? Poor hygienic practices. In which type of working conditions do you think this more prevalent?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
The ethics of Organic have to be considered on a case-by-case, evidenced-based basis. What, for instance, is ethical about buying "organic" dairy produce when that, in practice, means dairy produce from cows who have been treated with "homeopathy" (ie sugar pills) for an infection for which I would want to receive anti-biotics. That's cruel and stupid.

As I understand it, organic standards for dairy herds require treating sick animals with antibiotics, if that's the best thing for the animal. When a herd is managed properly, sickness (and therefore the need for antibiotics) is minimized. And that's a powerful incentive for organic farmers to manage their herds well, because an animal that has received antibiotics must be removed from the organic herd. Some small farmers keep the "no-longer-organic" cows in a separate herd, and use the milk from that herd for their own family, or sell it as conventional milk. Others sell the cows to conventional dairy farms.

Failing to treat a cow that needs antibiotics doesn't make sense for the farmer: they would risk their other cows getting sick, or the cow dying. That's a much larger financial loss to the farmer than selling the cow to a neighboring farm.

Organic farmers may not throw antibiotics at the first sign of sickness, the way a conventional farmer might -- but there are sound reasons for minimizing the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction?
Absolutely. I'm all in favour of there being as much information available to consumers as possible. It's when people move beyond that to saying "it should be illegal to achieve low food prices through low wages" that I'm less enthusiastic.

You mean slavery and exploitation should be legal?

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... Let's take an example of the consequences of this policy. The plasters of Smallville get together and decide that they won't work for less than $X an hour. .... The problem is that it's nice to believe there is an easy alternative, and populists have ridden that belief since forever, but in practice it ends in tears.

Well, Adam Smith disagreed with your conclusion. He thought a living wage (and a teensy bit more, actually) was essential for a strong economy and a productive society. He didn't think that real prosperity could be built on anyone's poverty. At the time, he was observing colonialism; today, he might say the same of globalization and sociopathic corporations. The affluence of the First World lifestyle depends on the poverty of the people of the Third World, whether they're at home or overseas. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's *plenty* of tears in today's economic system. Shit, who isn't crying? Oh, right. The 1%.

Bottom line: if poverty and unemployment are good for the "economy", there's something seriously fucked up with the economy. OliviaG

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
As I understand it, organic standards for dairy herds require treating sick animals with antibiotics, if that's the best thing for the animal. When a herd is managed properly, sickness (and therefore the need for antibiotics) is minimized. And that's a powerful incentive for organic farmers to manage their herds well, because an animal that has received antibiotics must be removed from the organic herd. Some small farmers keep the "no-longer-organic" cows in a separate herd, and use the milk from that herd for their own family, or sell it as conventional milk. Others sell the cows to conventional dairy farms.

Failing to treat a cow that needs antibiotics doesn't make sense for the farmer: they would risk their other cows getting sick, or the cow dying. That's a much larger financial loss to the farmer than selling the cow to a neighboring farm.

Organic farmers may not throw antibiotics at the first sign of sickness, the way a conventional farmer might -- but there are sound reasons for minimizing the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Well I had this explained to me by a dairy farmer but in the opposite direction - namely that an organic farmer has a financial incentive to keep this cow 'organic' as long as possible - and that cows treated with the antibiotics are no longer organic. So the cow just keeps getting sicker as the farmer holds off calling the vet as long as possible.

Sick cows are not worth a lot, whether they are organic or not.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Organic farmers may not throw antibiotics at the first sign of sickness, the way a conventional farmer might -- but there are sound reasons for minimizing the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

IIRC, many conventional farmers feed their animals antibiotics whether or not they are sick.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given that anyone who bought before 2000 is still sitting on an enormous capital gain...

No we're not. Well I'm not.

Anyway house prices really ought to fall a lot more in Britain. Maybe to a quarter of what they are now. That would shaft any hope of retirement I migh be foolish enough to have but I already I know I'll never get an adequate pension anyway so I'll have to carry on working as long as I can, and there are millions more in the same boat.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well I had this explained to me by a dairy farmer but in the opposite direction - namely that an organic farmer has a financial incentive to keep this cow 'organic' as long as possible - and that cows treated with the antibiotics are no longer organic. So the cow just keeps getting sicker as the farmer holds off calling the vet as long as possible.

Sick cows are not worth a lot, whether they are organic or not.

I do not know your farmer, but I call BS on this one. Without qualifiers, at least. Yeah, some might. Just as some non-organic farmers continued to feed their animals bits of other animals even after the obvious "mad cow" link. There'll always be people abusing whatever system is in place.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
As I understand it, organic standards for dairy herds require treating sick animals with antibiotics, if that's the best thing for the animal. When a herd is managed properly, sickness (and therefore the need for antibiotics) is minimized. And that's a powerful incentive for organic farmers to manage their herds well, because an animal that has received antibiotics must be removed from the organic herd. Some small farmers keep the "no-longer-organic" cows in a separate herd, and use the milk from that herd for their own family, or sell it as conventional milk. Others sell the cows to conventional dairy farms.

Failing to treat a cow that needs antibiotics doesn't make sense for the farmer: they would risk their other cows getting sick, or the cow dying. That's a much larger financial loss to the farmer than selling the cow to a neighboring farm.

Organic farmers may not throw antibiotics at the first sign of sickness, the way a conventional farmer might -- but there are sound reasons for minimizing the use of antibiotics in agriculture.
Well I had this explained to me by a dairy farmer but in the opposite direction - namely that an organic farmer has a financial incentive to keep this cow 'organic' as long as possible - and that cows treated with the antibiotics are no longer organic. So the cow just keeps getting sicker as the farmer holds off calling the vet as long as possible.

Sick cows are not worth a lot, whether they are organic or not.

Josephine's explanation seems persuasive. Of course in any population of people there will be a spectrum of ethical approaches represented. So I suppose it's fair to say that "organic" will induce good behaviour in some (most - hopefully) but not in all. Which is probably true of most codes of behaviour.

However, the broader point for me is that some organic/green approaches are actively anti-science (witness the UK Green Party threatening to destroy a legitimate and ethical experimental GM crop) so "organic" should not be taken as a certificate of general "goodness".

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I disagree with the idea that organic farmers are deliberately causing suffering in their animals by keeping them off medications.

We get much of our meat from an organic farm that was recently featured in a cable TV series spotlighting an area veterinarian. (Our spot in the world's 15 minutes of fame, I guess.) The farmer most certainly does NOT not treat sick animals with antibiotics; after all, one sick cow can endanger the rest of the herd. But, as someone else noted, once the sick animal receives antibiotics, s/he is sequestered from the rest of the herd, and in the case of this farmer he sells the animal to a conventional buyer.

I'll also mention that the whole problem of livestock being given antibiotics is not about individual sick animals being treated for their illnesses, but about the widespread practice of feeding livestock antibiotics to bulk them up for market. That in turn has created antibiotic-resistant disease organisms. That is why some of us avoid factory-farm meat.

I'll also point out that there are a couple of intermediate categories of farm between conventional and organic. There's something called an "environmentally verified" farm, which means that the farm incorporates a certain number of environmentally responsible, chemical-avoidant/earth protecting practices in its operation but isn't by-the-book organic. There are also a lot of small farmers like our friend The Lamb Lady who simply don't have the money to go through the bureaucratic hoopla to be "certified" as anything, but who in practice are organic farmers by any reasonable definition. I know that purchasing directly from such farmers is a luxury that I enjoy as a rural-dweller, that a lot of you cannot other than by patronizing such folks at your local farmers' market, if they're there; but it works for us. And, again, we meet many delightful people by buying direct and learning their stories as farmers and foragers.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from home improvements we are besotted with buying our homes, hardly surprising when it is promote by successsive governments over renting. That and travelling further to work (in our own cars) has swallowed up a lot of the real wage increases.

I don't know the truth of it (and the book I read it in was rather polemical) but I did reacently read a claim that pretty much the entire economic growth of the USA since the 1960s has gone into increased suburbanisation - larger houses, more cars, more roads, longer travel distances, more fuel consumption, and of course the great mortgage crisis which ate money like a big money-eating thing.

Which would be one is one reason why a majority of Americans seem to feel poorer than they were thirty or forty years ago even though the country as a whole is objectively a lot richer - the other two reasons being that big property owners have managed to grab an even higher proportion of all the wealth than they used to (even while fooling the rest of the country into thinking they have and a good chance to get rich themselves), and of course that everybody likes to whinge.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Middle-class wives may not have worked but I think they comprised a much smaller proportion of society than today.

Far more single-person households now than then. So many more its really hard to compare. Also earlier retirement (for those lucky enough to still be alive) has greatly increased the number of miiddle-aged and elderly people who are not in emplyment - that trend reveresed in the 1990s but many of the erly retirees of the 1980s and 90s are still in their 50s or 60s - a hundred years ago those people would likely have been working or dead.

[ 28. May 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

To quote from the Soil Association:

quote:
The routine use of antibiotics to promote growth or to treat the whole herd or flock as a preventative measure is banned under the Soil Association's standards. Antibiotics can only be used to treat sick animals. Homeopathy and herbal remedies are used widely in organic livestock management. However if antibiotics are needed to prevent the suffering of a sick animal then that treatment must be used.

So - antibiotics can be used to treat sickness, but not as a routine preventative. So - that's not an issue (although I'll call BS on the Homeopathy).

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I've never heard of practicing homeopathy on livestock, although I suspect that organic growers who subscribe to Anthroposophy/biodynamic farming might dose their animals with homeopathic potions the way they dose their gardens with Steiner-approved elixirs. Most American organic farmers are not biodynamic farmers.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... Let's take an example of the consequences of this policy. The plasters of Smallville get together and decide that they won't work for less than $X an hour. .... The problem is that it's nice to believe there is an easy alternative, and populists have ridden that belief since forever, but in practice it ends in tears.
Well, Adam Smith disagreed with your conclusion. He thought a living wage (and a teensy bit more, actually) was essential for a strong economy and a productive society. He didn't think that real prosperity could be built on anyone's poverty. At the time, he was observing colonialism; today, he might say the same of globalization and sociopathic corporations. The affluence of the First World lifestyle depends on the poverty of the people of the Third World, whether they're at home or overseas. And in case you hadn't noticed, there's *plenty* of tears in today's economic system. Shit, who isn't crying? Oh, right. The 1%.

Bottom line: if poverty and unemployment are good for the "economy", there's something seriously fucked up with the economy. OliviaG

Oh please; engage with the economic argument, or shut up. This is a logical deduction from the facts presented - as such, just because you don't like the consequences of that logic, it's extremely irrational just to place a paper bag over your head, place your fingers in your ears and hum. I'll accept Adam Smith as an authority on real economics to the same extent as I'll accept a 18th century medical doctor as my doctor; they may have something important to contribute, but a lot of their 'knowledge' is just wrong. Surgery without anaethetics anyone?

I repeat: this relatively free market system - and yes, it's simplistic to describe China as a truly free market given the prevalence of State Owned Enterprises, has raise HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS from extreme poverty. It's also lowered the living standards of many Americans from very comfortable to barely adequate. From a world perspective - i.e. the one you get when you apply 'Love your neighbour as yourself' - this is a BIG improvement. Of course if you are an American who doesn't think slit eyed Chinks should be considered, then you are welcome to your selfish short term autarky, keeping the Asian hoards down.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

It's relatively free as compared to what? The only reason the free market has lifted the Chinese out of poverty, to the extent it has lifted the Chinese out of poverty, is because China's trading partners bought into free trade and China did not. Free trade is based on 19th century economic theory. Explaining the theory behind free trade in detail would be political suicide for any politician who did it.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
but the core concept 'free exchange is no robbery' has served us well overall.

I think the problem is, though, that the global economic system is not a system of truly free trade operating on only free exchanges.

Export and import tariffs - not free trade
Government subsidies - not free trade (look what US subsidies of their domestic rice market did to growers in West Africa)
Companies in dominant positions artificially manipulating the market to their advantage - not free trade
Cartels - not free trade (OPEC anybody?)
The shadow economy increasingly affecting the price of goods rather than genuine supply and demand - not free trade

I'm making no judgement as to what system of trade is best/worst, just that what we call free trade really ain't...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Re antibiotics: if you do things properly, you're actually a heck of a lot less likely to get sick animals in the first place.

Certainly, one of the biggest reasons for me being keen on my free range eggs is a bug called Eimeria that I learnt about while studying parasitology at university (seriously, THE most satisfying unit you could possibly study for fascinating dinner party facts [Snigger]

).

Chickens in cages can be totally devastated by Eimeria. One solution: pump them (and your eggs) full of antibiotics. Better solution: let them out of the cages, as Eimeria infections in free range chickens are much less common, and much less likely to spread through the whole flock.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It's relatively free as compared to what? The only reason the free market has lifted the Chinese out of poverty, to the extent it has lifted the Chinese out of poverty, is because China's trading partners bought into free trade and China did not. Free trade is based on 19th century economic theory. Explaining the theory behind free trade in detail would be political suicide for any politician who did it.

The comparison is with the command economies of the Soviet era when a central plan failed miserably to provide for the people. Yes, iamchristianhearmeroar, it's not perfect, but it's a VAST improvement on the disasters that went before.

Let's try a little multiple choice question here:

Which economic system resulted in hundreds of millions of Chinese rising out of poverty? Was it

a) The Maoist collectivist model

or

b) An approximation of a free market, with separate actors acting competitively.

Stalin in the 1930s was able to find a vast supply of useful idiots to help him hoodwink the world about his hell because people desperately wanted to believe that there was an alternative to capitalism. Despite Stalin and Mao's clear demonstrations that there weren't, there are STILL useful idiots trotting off to Cuba and North Korea in significant numbers.

We all WANT to believe that Santa Claus is real. Most of us stop believing in him by the age of 10. Sadly a lot of left wingers transfer their allegiance to an equally fanciful set of beliefs.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, a free market economy is anything but a government controlled economy? Great. Even if the United States completely returned to the American System, we would still have more of a free market economy than the Chinese. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, a free market economy is anything but a government controlled economy? Great. Even if the United States completely returned to the American System, we would still have more of a free market economy than the Chinese. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Clearly the degree to which a country has a free market is a location on a spectrum; even North Korea has some farmers' markets at times. What is core to the definition is the freedom for others to enter existing markets - be it for cars, computers or care homes - setting up in competition with the intention of providing the product or service in a way that gives the consumer a better deal and the new entrant a reasonable profit margin.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I have a hard time seeing how the Chinese are embracing the free market but those advocating fair trade are not. Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Anything I've ever heard called fair trade is closer to a free market system than what the Chinese are doing.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I have a hard time seeing how the Chinese are embracing the free market but those advocating fair trade are not. Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Anything I've ever heard called fair trade is closer to a free market system than what the Chinese are doing.

Fair trade - to the extent that it is a purely voluntary decision by the consumer to pay more for what they buy - is ultimately an act of charity and has no effect on the free market. Where it become something enforced by government edict, then problems start to emerge: in practice it will be used by those opposing legitimate economic change to try and protect their industries from their approaching, and inevitable death.

Actually there are issues where some degree of control is entirely justified: deforestation is one area which works for me. But the problem is that the costs of going down this route rapidly build up to the point where the economic growth of the poorer country is compromised, and therefore the poor stay poor. They are the group that is routinely ignored in these arguments because we fixate on the workers in the industries that are going to go.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

ES, I'm quite at a loss to understand where you get this notion of Fair Trade by government edict.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you're a fan of the free market, doesn't a free market require that the buyer and seller both have full information about their transaction?
Absolutely. I'm all in favour of there being as much information available to consumers as possible. It's when people move beyond that to saying "it should be illegal to achieve low food prices through low wages" that I'm less enthusiastic.
Two follow-up questions.

First, is there any way to ensure that consumers who want it can get information about pay and working conditions for agricultural workers, when producers have strong incentives to hide it?

Well, you can make providing that information a legal requirement. Sure, some people will try to get round the law, but then there are people who try to get round every law.

And no, mandating such information is not excessive government control in my book. The producers are still perfectly free to operate under their chosen business model, they just have to tell us they're doing it so that those of us who care about such things can choose to give our business to producers whose methods we approve of.

quote:
Second, how low are you okay with agricultural wages going? Are you opposed to minimum wage generally, or just for agricultural workers?

In practice, the real question is "how high can agricultural wages (and therefore food prices) go before I'm unable to buy food for my family". Doubling the wages of agricultural workers is fine in principle, but if it leads to a doubling in the amount I have to pay at the checkout every week then I'll soon be in financial trouble. And if someone has to be in financial trouble then I'd rather it be them. Sorry.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

Let's try a little multiple choice question here:

Which economic system resulted in hundreds of millions of Chinese rising out of poverty? Was it

a) The Maoist collectivist model

or

b) An approximation of a free market, with separate actors acting competitively.

That's fine as long as you accept another multiple-choice question:

Which economic system led to higher economic wellbeing, health and happiness?

a.) Laissez-faire economic liberalism c.1790

or

b.) Clement Attlee-style welfare state socialism c.1950?

Ergo, socialism is great and free markets are bad.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE]]Fair trade - to the extent that it is a purely voluntary decision by the consumer to pay more for what they buy - is ultimately an act of charity and has no effect on the free market.

Not at all. it is the consumer making a moral* choice about his/her behaviour in the free market-as one would hope that s/he would make a moral choice about his/her behaviour in any other sphere of life. In the real world, market choices (by individuals, not by those algorithms that seem to have got us all into such a fix) are influenced, rightly or wrongly, by a wider range of factors that are dreamt of in the philosophy of the Chicago School. Fair trade is, now, one such factor.

*It might in fairness be more of a lifestyle choice for some - 'I'm the sort of person who buys fairtrade'- as 'I'm the sort of person who shops at Waitrose rather than Sainsbury, or Sainsbury rather than Tesco, etc'. But either way, it's still a market choice. As I say, in the real world rather few of our market decisions are solely the outcome of a 'rational' economic calculus.

[ 30. May 2012, 09:13: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Indeed. AIUI the free market assumption is that people seek to 'maximise their utility', which is a pompous way of making the fairly anodyne point that people try to do whatever will bring them the most personal satisfaction.

So if I decide that giving all my possessions to the poor and living on a pole in the desert will bring me the greatest sense of fulfilment, and do so, I am considered to have 'maximised my utility', even though I haven't done anything that a CEO would consider economic sense.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE]]Fair trade - to the extent that it is a purely voluntary decision by the consumer to pay more for what they buy - is ultimately an act of charity and has no effect on the free market.
Not at all. it is the consumer making a moral* choice about his/her behaviour in the free market-as one would hope that s/he would make a moral choice about his/her behaviour in any other sphere of life.

Oh, fairtrade is absolutely a free market thing. It's people choosing to spend more on products that cost more, because they are happy with the reasons why those products cost more.

The effect it will have on the market will come if and when so many people are choosing to buy fairtrade products that other producers will have to become fairtrade in order to continue to shift their stock. But that's not a change to the principles of the free market itself - in fact, fairtrade is (for want of a better phrase) a free market solution to the problem of ethical sourcing.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Thank you for this, Marvin- you've expressed what I meant much more clearly than I have managed to.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yes, and I agree with what Marvin said as well. Which is why I find Ender's Shadow's position rather mystifying.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

LOL, when I saw that Marvin had posted on this thread, I was already clicking to open it with knives sharpened to attack his libertarian views on capitalism. Then I read his post, and discovered that I completely agree with it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, you can make providing that information a legal requirement. Sure, some people will try to get round the law, but then there are people who try to get round every law.

And no, mandating such information is not excessive government control in my book. The producers are still perfectly free to operate under their chosen business model, they just have to tell us they're doing it so that those of us who care about such things can choose to give our business to producers whose methods we approve of.

There are already a raft load of food labelling requirements, so adding ethical information doesn't seem a big additional burden (and, indeed, things like FairTrade and Organic labels already do that). Of course, there will be pressure to cut corners on labelling to maintain profits, and in some cases the labels may become effetively worthless. There are examples of both within current labeling requirements.

In Europe it's already a requirement to label food that may contain irradiated or genetically modified product. And, consumers can choose to avoid buying products that may contain such ingredients. Of course, both irradiated and GM ingredients are common on the wholesale market and manufacturers go to quite considerable trouble to source non-irradiated and non-GM supplies since in both cases consumer choice makes it practically impossible to sell something with a "may contain irradiated ingredients" label. Not being as diligent about sourcing ingredients is cheaper, and so very tempting for business looking at the bottom line, and may result in irradiated or GM ingredients getting into unlabeled products. Especially in the case of GM, the policies of some countries in not differentiating between conventional and GM products makes it effectively impossible for non-GM ingredients to be sourced. Which, of course, denies consumers choice and restricts the market so it's even less free than it would otherwise be.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QUOTE]]Fair trade - to the extent that it is a purely voluntary decision by the consumer to pay more for what they buy - is ultimately an act of charity and has no effect on the free market.
Not at all. it is the consumer making a moral* choice about his/her behaviour in the free market-as one would hope that s/he would make a moral choice about his/her behaviour in any other sphere of life. ...

I could save quite a bit of money by buying a stolen laptop or TV, for example. There's a reason why I don't, and it has nothing to do with charity. OliviaG

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0