Is free trade or fair trade more in accordance with Catholic teaching?

[minkymurph]

minkymurph;12087630:

If a person receives a salary or a commission, there is no such thing as minimum wage. One puts in as much time and effort as the job requires. My daughter is salaried when working for a company. Right now, she is contracting her services. Whatever the client is prepared to pay determines whether a contract is made.

I understand salaried employees do not receive an hourly rate as such, but that does not answer the question.

Indulge me for a moment. Your daughter works as a public relations consultant. You worked as a computer programmer. Let’s imagine your respective employers said they are no longer willing to pay you a salary because to continue to do so would result in at best redundancies and at worst, they would go out of business? Would either of you be prepared to take a reduction in salary to save jobs and prevent your employers going out of business?

Say your employers proposed they wanted to change the terms and conditions of you contract, and wanted you to work for an hourly rate because continuing to pay you a salary would result in job losses and perhaps them going out of business? Would you agree to re-negotiated terms and what would you ask them to set as an hourly rate?

You say your daughter is contracting her services and whatever the client is prepared to pay determines whether a contract is made. What if the client offered to pay her three dollars an hour because that is all they could afford? Would she conclude a contract with them? If not, why not if that was all they could afford to pa, and if she did not accept it people would lose their jobs and the business would go under?

You say if your daughter does not conclude her contract she still gets a salary. Is that correct? What if her employer said they wanted to renegotiate her employment contract and reduce her salary because they were having a bad year, and wanted her to take an hourly rate of five dollars an hour? (I’m using that as a hypothetical figure) They tell her if she is not prepared to reduce her salary they would have to let not her, but others go. Would you recommend to her she accepts this so others can stay in work?

Indulge me a little further and imagine businesses across the board took a collective decision to pay public relations consultants by the hour, set at five dollars an hour, because to pay them more would mean they could not sell their product/services because they would be too expensive, they would have to pay people off and the businesses concerned may go under? Do you think the businesses concerned would be justified in changing the terms and conditions of employees contracts and paying them five dollars an hour to save jobs and their business?

 

[nmgauss]

In a sole-proprietor company, the owner is the employee, i.e. he is self-employed. So if his business does not allow him to earn a decent wage, should he agree to work for himself at a lower wage, or should he close up shop, and go somewhere else to demand a decent wage from another company that wants to be fair and may itself go out of business because of high labor costs?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Where would she find cheaper groceries than Wal -Mart?

Aldi or Save a lot, or most grocery store if you time your purchases around their sales.

 

[trickster]

Hello everyone. I have been thinking about this for the past couple of days and I just got around to asking about it on here. Would free trade or fair trade policies be more in accordance with Catholic teaching? Please explain your reasoning. Thank you!

Fair trade is more Christian than free trade.

Trickster

 

[minkymurph]

In a sole-proprietor company, the owner is the employee, i.e. he is self-employed. So if his business does not allow him to earn a decent wage, should he agree to work for himself at a lower wage, or should he close up shop, and go somewhere else to demand a decent wage from another company that wants to be fair and may itself go out of business because of high labor costs?

I’m not sure if this is a reply to my post or not. If it is, and I don’t know for certain it is, it does not answer the questions I posed. It poses another without answering and answering a question with a question is not an answer.

Having said that, if a business does not allow him to earn a decent wage I would argue it is highly unlikely he is in a position to provide employment for others - at least not to any great extent. In the current recession many businesses have closed up shop, and the proprietors are now working for someone else. However, they are working for someone who has the capacity to ride the tide. It is unlikely someone who has to close up shop will be employed by another businessman who is on the verge of collapse because he is unable to generate sufficient income for himself will employ him.

I would have to say, if the proprietor of that business told me they would be compelled to pay me less than the minimum wage, because they were generating so little income from their business their personal salary was less than the minimum wage, I would be looking for a job elsewhere - unless I was desperate.

Would I be right to say if you could negotiate your own salary, and a company told you they would collapse if they paid you that salary, you have reservations about working for them? I would be fairly confident you would not accept a job with a business that was struggling to that extent you describe, and I would be fairly confident you would advise your family members to look elsewhere for employment. I would also be fairly confident securing employment for others and preventing the said company from going under would not be your priority. Would I be right? It would not be my priority either. I would be happy to lend my consumer weight to such a business, but not my labor because I want more security than that. I would guess so would you, for yourself and your family.

I would also say you portray a very bleak concept of entrepreneurism, in that you portray it as a collection of struggling businesses, the proprietors of which are barely living above the poverty line themselves and forced to pay their employees a wage which is considerably lower than the poverty line as a consequence. Is that what entrepreneurism has to offer? A life of near poverty for everyone?

 

[nmgauss]

I would also say you portray a very bleak concept of entrepreneurism, in that you portray it as a collection of struggling businesses, the proprietors of which are barely living above the poverty line themselves and forced to pay their employees a wage which is considerably lower than the poverty line as a consequence. Is that what entrepreneurism has to offer? A life of near poverty for everyone?

The vast majority of new businesses fail within the first year, so becoming an entrepeneur is very risky. Also, the vast majority of entrepeneurs are sole-proprietors or family run businesses. The family members help run the business but are not employees. They are not subject to minimum wage laws. A good example is Chinese Restaurants where the whole family operates the establishment. My condominium complex has a swimming pool maintenance man keep the pool operable. He is his own employee. We also have a plumber who works alone. Depending on the success of the business, some indeed may be living just above the poverty line. Others grow over time and the whole family prospers.

Look at all the single family farms that failed during the Dust Bowl. People were starving. Even today, family farms in such places as Nebraska and Kansas are failing. Nobody demands that these people be paid a living wage.

 

[minkymurph]

The vast majority of new businesses fail within the first year, so becoming an entrepeneur is very risky. Also, the vast majority of entrepeneurs are sole-proprietors or family run businesses. The family members help run the business but are not employees. They are not subject to minimum wage laws. A good example is Chinese Restaurants where the whole family operates the establishment. My condominium complex has a swimming pool maintenance man keep the pool operable. He is his own employee. We also have a plumber who works alone. Depending on the success of the business, some indeed may be living just above the poverty line. Others grow over time and the whole family prospers.

I understand what you say, but it’s not an answer to what I was asking.

Look at all the single family farms that failed during the Dust Bowl. People were starving. Even today, family farms in such places as Nebraska and Kansas are failing. Nobody demands that these people be paid a living wage.

Why not? I certainly would! Ireland is mainly agricultural and people fight for financial assistance for farmers all the time. In recent times a huge storm hit my part of the world. A relief fund was set up for farmers who lost livestock and they received compensation from the government. Are you saying that after the Dust Bowl no similar measures were taken to assist farmers? That’s bad.

From what your saying it would appear the consequences of free market is a life of near poverty for the majority. I have been told the vast majority of people in the US do in fact live in near poverty, and 95% of the wealth is held and controlled by a small elite. I didn’t think it could be true. Is it true?

 

[Nan_S]

A relief fund was set up for farmers who lost livestock and they received compensation from the government. Are you saying that after the Dust Bowl no similar measures were taken to assist farmers? That’s bad.

From what your saying it would appear the consequences of free market is a life of near poverty for the majority. I have been told the vast majority of people in the US do in fact live in near poverty, and 95% of the wealth is held and controlled by a small elite. I didn’t think it could be true. Is it true?

No, it’s not true. Farm subsidies are a huge political football in the United States.

Whoever told you that the vast majority of Americans live near poverty didn’t know what he was talking about. Among other things the definition of “poverty” in the United States is completely out of whack with real poverty in most other parts of the world. A family living at or near the United States poverty level has a car, two or three cell phones, a two or three bedroom house (probably rented) with air conditioning and heat, cable TV or satellite service for their 32" flat-screen TV, credit cards, jewelry, and a refrigerator with food. They don’t pay income taxes; when everyone else pays tax they get a subsidy check: Earned Income Credit. They get food stamps, their kids get free or subsidized breakfast and lunch at school, and in most places they get free medical care through Medicaid. Medicaid isn’t new; that program has been around since 1965.

Compare that to poverty in India or Haiti or Central America. The United States has the richest “poor” people in the world.

And the claim that 95% of the wealth is held and controlled by a small elite? That’s not true either. That’s a groundless conspiracy theory claim put forth by the likes of anti-government groups who style themselves as “sovereign citizens / the militia / the patriots.” If you saw the news about folks supporting a rancher named Cliven Bundy who has been squatting on federal land and refusing to pay the ridiculously low fees for grazing his cattle there, that’s them.

But this thread isn’t about the so-called sovereign citizens / militia / patriots. I only mentioned it because they and their gurus are the source of that bogus claim that 95% of the wealth is held by an elite. As is typical with them, the numbers don’t back up their claims.

 

[minkymurph]

No, it’s not true. Farm subsidies are a huge political football in the United States.

I see

Whoever told you that the vast majority of Americans live near poverty didn’t know what he was talking about.

I did wonder. Thank you for clarification.

Among other things the definition of “poverty” in the United States is completely out of whack with real poverty in most other parts of the world. A family living at or near the United States poverty level has a car, two or three cell phones, a two or three bedroom house (probably rented) with air conditioning and heat, cable TV or satellite service for their 32" flat-screen TV, credit cards, jewelry, and a refrigerator with food. They don’t pay income taxes; when everyone else pays tax they get a subsidy check: Earned Income Credit. They get food stamps, their kids get free or subsidized breakfast and lunch at school, and in most places they get free medical care through Medicaid. Medicaid isn’t new; that program has been around since 1965.

Now I can identify with this argument - it’s a good one. I wouldn’t call the conditions you describe poverty. This situation sounds similar to Ireland. What I don’t understand is why people would object to them being paid more so they would pay for their own children meals and medical care themselves, and pay income tax? I they are getting hand-out’s someone has to foot the bill. Why not the employers as opposed to good old taxpayer as the employers derive the most benefit from their labour?

And the claim that 95% of the wealth is held and controlled by a small elite? That’s not true either. That’s a groundless conspiracy theory claim put forth by the likes of anti-government groups who style themselves as “sovereign citizens / the militia / the patriots.” If you saw the news about folks supporting a rancher named Cliven Bundy who has been squatting on federal land and refusing to pay the ridiculously low fees for grazing his cattle there, that’s them.

But this thread isn’t about the so-called sovereign citizens / militia / patriots. I only mentioned it because they and their gurus are the source of that bogus claim that 95% of the wealth is held by an elite. As is typical with them, the numbers don’t back up their claims.

The thread isn’t directly related to the issues you mention. I brought this point up because I got the impression, and I may have misinterpreted, it was being argued only a small percentage of businesses are profitable - the majority of businesses were barely scraping a living.

I must admit I love conspiracy theories, but I know not to take them too seriously. I must google Cliven Bundy. The ‘travelling community’ here get it rough and there is terrible prejudice against them, but having said that they don’t help themselves. They want councils to build sites for them but they don’t want to pay anything. If they want to live their live that way that’s fine by me, but when we stay on a camp site we have to pay. Why shouldn’t they? They all drive big cars yet argue they have no bins. I have a bin but I have to pay for it. If it is full I have to drive my junk to the dump.

 

[nmgauss]

Why not? I certainly would! Ireland is mainly agricultural and people fight for financial assistance for farmers all the time. In recent times a huge storm hit my part of the world. A relief fund was set up for farmers who lost livestock and they received compensation from the government. Are you saying that after the Dust Bowl no similar measures were taken to assist farmers? That’s bad.

You’re living in a fantasy world if you expect people to be paid a living wage for doing nothing. Having a relief fund is different than being paid wages. It is temporary and not designed be a permanent solution. The Dust Bowl in the U.S. occurred during the Great Depression when government handouts were almost non-existent. Surplus cash was not flowing around like water. My mother at one point had no food in the house with two little babies to feed, and had to resort to stealing raisins from nearby sweat boxes (moisturizer facilities for sun dried raisins). Have you seen the movie “The Grapes of Wrath” based on John Steinbeck’s novel of the same name? It portrays the hard life of the Joad family whose Oklahoma farm failed and they had to eke a living out alone. My grandparents hired migratory farm workers and housed them in a barn without any running water or sanitation. And the workers were happy to have income.

From what your saying it would appear the consequences of free market is a life of near poverty for the majority. I have been told the vast majority of people in the US do in fact live in near poverty, and 95% of the wealth is held and controlled by a small elite. I didn’t think it could be true. Is it true?

You are thinking in terms of either/or. Either the vast majority is living in poverty or they are not. The vast majority are middle-class, have comfortable jobs, live in comfortable homes, and have cars. What do you see in the large cities of Ireland or the U.K.? The vast majority of people are not living in poverty. And most of the private businesses are small entrepreneurial enterprises. Maybe if you read the business sections of newspapers, you would realize that.

 

[minkymurph]

You’re living in a fantasy world if you expect people to be paid a living wage for doing nothing.

And where did I say I expected people to be paid a living wage for doing nothing?

I would like to point out again you have not directly answered on direct question I posed.

Having a relief fund is different than being paid wages. It is temporary and not designed be a permanent solution. The Dust Bowl in the U.S. occurred during the Great Depression when government handouts were almost non-existent. Surplus cash was not flowing around like water. My mother at one point had no food in the house with two little babies to feed, and had to resort to stealing raisins from nearby sweat boxes (moisturizer facilities for sun dried raisins). Have you seen the movie “The Grapes of Wrath” based on John Steinbeck’s novel of the same name? It portrays the hard life of the Joad family whose Oklahoma farm failed and they had to eke a living out alone. My grandparents hired migratory farm workers and housed them in a barn without any running water or sanitation. And the workers were happy to have income.

Are you talking about 1929? I think you need to bring your arguments up to date. The storm in Ireland I was talking about was last year. I don’t think you can use the Grapes of Wrath to support your argument anymore than I could use Angela’s Ashes.

You are thinking in terms of either/or. Either the vast majority is living in poverty or they are not. The vast majority are middle-class, have comfortable jobs, live in comfortable homes, and have cars. What do you see in the large cities of Ireland or the U.K.? The vast majority of people are not living in poverty. And most of the private businesses are small entrepreneurial enterprises. Maybe if you read the business sections of newspapers, you would realize that.

I can’t speak for England, Scotland or Wales because I have not traveled to a big city these countries recently, (have you?) but maybe if you walked down the main street in my town you would see for yourself you are completely wrong. Small private businesses have gone, to the point where they have painted shop windows and people on derelict buildings to make it look better. The only businesses that are surviving are big chains and those that are well-established. I don’t need to read the business section of newspapers to know that, I can see it with my own eyes.

Have a look at this newspaper.

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/100000-northern-ireland-children-living-in-poverty-28492827.html

And consider this.

rte.ie/news/2012/0410/316620-thousands-living-in-poverty-according-to-report/

And just in case you try and avoid the facts by arguing these are left-wing anti-capitalist reports, here are reports from the The Times.

thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3660453.ece

thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3778554.ece

You argue I am living in a fantasy world? I don’t think it is I who is having fantasies. I would appreciate it if you would not insult my intelligence by telling me you know better than I do what is going on on my doorstep because you read the business papers.

At least I had the courtesy to pose a question in regards to information I was given regarding poverty in the US rather than presume I knew better than those that live there because I had read an academic journal - not a newspaper. I also accept the information I was given was incorrect on the word of someone else on this thread because I don’t live in the US and in fact have never been the US. The least you could is afford me the same courtesy. Let’s see if you will.

 

[minkymurph]

And where did I say I expected people to be paid a living wage for doing nothing?

I would like to point out again you have not directly answered on direct question I posed.

Are you talking about 1929? I think you need to bring your arguments up to date. The storm in Ireland I was talking about was last year. I don’t think you can use the Grapes of Wrath to support your argument anymore than I could use Angela’s Ashes.

I can’t speak for England, Scotland or Wales because I have not traveled to a big city these countries recently, (have you?) but maybe if you walked down the main street in my town you would see for yourself you are completely wrong. Small private businesses have gone, to the point where they have painted shop windows and people on derelict buildings to make it look better. The only businesses that are surviving are big chains and those that are well-established. I don’t need to read the business section of newspapers to know that, I can see it with my own eyes.

Have a look at this newspaper.

belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/100000-northern-ireland-children-living-in-poverty-28492827.html

And consider this.

rte.ie/news/2012/0410/316620-thousands-living-in-poverty-according-to-report/

And just in case you try and avoid the facts by arguing these are left-wing anti-capitalist reports, here are reports from the The Times.

thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3660453.ece

thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3778554.ece

You argue I am living in a fantasy world? I don’t think it is I who is having fantasies. I would appreciate it if you would not insult my intelligence by telling me you know better than I do what is going on on my doorstep because you read the business papers.

At least I had the courtesy to pose a question in regards to information I was given regarding poverty in the US rather than presume I knew better than those that live there because I had read an academic journal - not a newspaper. I also accept the information I was given was incorrect on the word of someone else on this thread because I don’t live in the US and in fact have never been the US. The least you could is afford me the same courtesy. Let’s see if you will.

Here is something else for you to consider alongside your business newspaper.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/clusters/map/graphics/ni.pdf

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11706740

 

[nmgauss]

To Minkymurph:

If you stick to the facts supported by statistics, you might make your point. Most of your citations are sensational pieces from the news or from politicians. How about some analytical pieces prepared without a bias?

Articles from the business pages of the Times of London would help. Even Manchester Guardian business articles would be good to read. Journalists want to create a story to attract your attention. That is why it is up front in the newspaper.

 

[nmgauss]

To Minkymurph: Is this your question?

You say clients pay your daughter beaucoup? In which case would I be correct to assume she is paid more than the minimum wage? In which case, is the argument an imposed minimum wage will create more unemployment and cause businesses to go under not really the issue? Is the real issue the people engaged in occupations on the lower end of the employment spectrum are not considered deserving of it?

Since she was on a salary, there was no such thing as a minimum wage. Now that she is a private consultant exposed to the vagaries of the public relations consultant market, she is not guaranteed any wage.

Imposing minimum wage requirements on businesses means they cannot employ as many people. This is now impacting the fast-food industry. The business can choose to employ fewer people or it can go under. Either way there are fewer jobs to go around.

Whether people on the lower end of the employment spectrum deserve better is not the issue. The issue is whether employers can afford to keep them on the payroll.

 

[minkymurph]

To Minkymurph:

If you stick to the facts supported by statistics, you might make your point. Most of your citations are sensational pieces from the news or from politicians. How about some analytical pieces prepared without a bias?

Articles from the business pages of the Times of London would help. Even Manchester Guardian business articles would be good to read. Journalists want to create a story to attract your attention. That is why it is up front in the newspaper.

The London Times

londontimes.blog.co.uk/2011/12/01/england-goes-on-strike-as-big-depression-looms-for-12242452/

londontimes.blog.co.uk/2011/01/17/irish-premier-won-t-quit-and-can-t-quit-as-he-s-making-millions-out-of-ireland-s-debt-crisis-10382950/

londontimes.blog.co.uk/2011/11/20/the-church-of-england-has-a-commitment-and-moral-obligation-to-speak-up-for-those-who-have-no-voice-12196559/

londontimes.blog.co.uk/2011/01/30/the-british-not-only-supports-corruption-but-also-with-its-support-it-supports-child-abuse-10467032/

 

[minkymurph]

To Minkymurph: Is this your question?

You say clients pay your daughter beaucoup? In which case would I be correct to assume she is paid more than the minimum wage? In which case, is the argument an imposed minimum wage will create more unemployment and cause businesses to go under not really the issue? Is the real issue the people engaged in occupations on the lower end of the employment spectrum are not considered deserving of it?

Since she was on a salary, there was no such thing as a minimum wage. Now that she is a private consultant exposed to the vagaries of the public relations consultant market, she is not guaranteed any wage.

Any salary can be broken down into an hourly rate.

The minimum wage guarantees no more than being paid a set rate for each hour you work. If your daughter is a private consultant, then she has a degree of bargaining power in terms of what she gets paid.

Imposing minimum wage requirements on businesses means they cannot employ as many people. This is now impacting the fast-food industry. The business can choose to employ fewer people or it can go under. Either way there are fewer jobs to go around.

But if you pay lower wages does good old taxpayer not have to foot the bill for the government assistance people on the lower end of the employment spectrum? Is libertarianism not also against giving people government assistance?

Paying below the minimum wage and reliance on government assistance also means people have less money to spend. Does this not effect business? It is also near impossible for people on the minimum wage, or less, to get onto the property ladder. Now I can see how this would be good for landlords, but if more people bought and sold houses would the property market not flourish to a greater extent?

I can’t see McDonald’s, Burger King or Kentucky going under in the near future because they will be forced to employ less people. These companies are flourishing here and they have to pay people the minimum wage.

Whether people on the lower end of the employment spectrum deserve better is not the issue. The issue is whether employers can afford to keep them on the payroll.

I’ll tell you why I said that. A fellow student in one of my tutorial groups is American. According to her, some people, and I stress some people, who oppose the minimum wage argue those on the lower end of the employment spectrum don’t deserve any more.

 

[minkymurph]

To Minkymurph:

If you stick to the facts supported by statistics, you might make your point. Most of your citations are sensational pieces from the news or from politicians. How about some analytical pieces prepared without a bias?

Articles from the business pages of the Times of London would help. Even Manchester Guardian business articles would be good to read. Journalists want to create a story to attract your attention. That is why it is up front in the newspaper.

I already gave you this link which is a statistical analysis of occupations. I have a sneaking suspicion you didn’t look at it, so here is is again.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/clusters/map/graphics/ni.pdf

 

[Nan_S]

Regarding the Minimum Wage and its effect on employment: When you increase labor costs but don’t have a parallel increase in revenues, the only way to keep costs under control is to CUT labor. Sure, everyone who is working gets paid a little more per hour. The problem is that fewer people are working, and those who do work find their hours cut.

I was the mother of teenagers the last time the minimum wage was increased. That was not a good year for teens to be looking for summer jobs. Now typical teen positions are retail clerks, fast food, theater ushers… all minimum wage unskilled positions.

Faced with higher costs of employment, but product prices and revenue that stayed the same, the employers had to cut working hours and eliminate positions to keep their labor costs under control. Consequently, the year the minimum wage went up, the only teens who were hired were the ones with prior training and experience. The previous summer the video store managers could hire 10 kids and have them all work 25 hours per week. After the wage increase they could only hire 8 kids to work 25 hours per week.

The other problem they had was that those 8 kids now had to do the same work in fewer hours than the 10 had used the previous summer. The number of tasks didn’t change, but the hours available to perform those tasks went down, so only the most experienced and efficient kids were hired.

 

[nmgauss]

I already gave you this link which is a statistical analysis of occupations. I have a sneaking suspicion you didn’t look at it, so here is is again.

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/clusters/map/graphics/ni.pdf

There is nothing here to support your argument. These are just bare statistics. If you want to make a point and to support it with statistics, that is what I am looking for.

 

[minkymurph]

There is nothing here to support your argument. These are just bare statistics. If you want to make a point and to support it with statistics, that is what I am looking for.

You went through those statistics very quickly.

These statistics were presented not in support of an argument I was making, but rather for you to deduce which sector employs the highest number of people which relates to your assertion about the number of small businesses in the UK and Ireland.

What about you provide some statistics to support your argument imposition of the minimum wage will result in more unemployment? It’s not exactly fair I should do all the work, is it? It’s also infinitely easier to simply refute what someone says and reject their evidence than to provide evidence? Would you agree? Do this, then I will look for the statistics you request.