Making a profit on eBay

[Catholic90]

So I guess the question boils down to which is a better source of moral teaching - the business practices of US stores, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

No, it boils down to how much someone is willing to pay. The seller should not have to hold the buyer’s hand and say, “Now I’m selling it for $350, but Circuit City has it for $250, and Jose on Craig’s List has one for $375.”

It is the BUYER’S responsibility to research that for himself. If he thinks it is a good value (saves time, he is willing to pay that amount, and he wants it), then he will pay it. If he doesn’t want to pay that amount, he may invest the time to research further. Maybe he wants to, maybe he doesn’t.

It is called capitalism. Everybody has to earn a living!

My boys offer their services to mow lawns.

They charge $20 per average lawn in our neighborhood. Another neighbor boy charges $15. Yet another charges $25.

My boys have steady mowing jobs. Some are willing to pay them their going rate; others are not. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. When a potential client calls them, they ask what they charge, and my sons tell them. They do not volunteer that 2 other neighbors also mow and have different rates. That is up to the purchaser to research.

 

[strugglingalong]

It is called capitalism. Everybody has to earn a living!

My boys offer their services to mow lawns.

They charge $20 per average lawn in our neighborhood. Another neighbor boy charges $15. Yet another charges $25.

My boys have steady mowing jobs. Some are willing to pay them their going rate; others are not. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. When a potential client calls them, they ask what they charge, and my sons tell them. They do not volunteer that 2 other neighbors also mow and have different rates. That is up to the purchaser to research.

That’s different than your boys hiring other neighbor boys who mows lawns for $5 and then your boys charging $13 for the service.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Sir_Knight]

If the neighbor boys can’t find customers on their own and the other boys line up work for them AT THE RATE THAT THEY WANT ($5 an hour), what is the problem with them getting an extra $8 for themselves?

They did no one a dis-service. The customer agreed to pay the $13 and the neighbor boys agreed to do the work for $5.

Just as in the parable with the workers in the field. The master gave each one the same pay – the same to those that worked only one hour as to those that worked a full day. No dis-service was done to anyone because they worked for the wage that they agreed upon.

 

[strugglingalong]

If the neighbor boys can’t find customers on their own and the other boys line up work for them AT THE RATE THAT THEY WANT ($5 an hour), what is the problem with them getting an extra $8 for themselves?

They did no one a dis-service. The customer agreed to pay the $13 and the neighbor boys agreed to do the work for $5.

Just as in the parable with the workers in the field. The master gave each one the same pay – the same to those that worked only one hour as to those that worked a full day. No dis-service was done to anyone because they worked for the wage that they agreed upon.

Well the caveat is that you can’t just pay someone what they’re willing to take. If a man says he’ll take a pay of $6.00/hour but that isn’t enough for him to live on then that is wrong. That is why the Church has said what is required is a living wage, not a minimum wage. It’s not just about what someone is willing to accept. It is about what is just and charitable.

Pax Christi tecum.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What about if the employer can’t afford to pay above the minimum wage for several of his positions? Should he pay more anyway to provide that “living wage” at the risk of over-extending himself and risk the business failing resulting in all of his workers losing their salaries and maybe even putting the financial security of his own family at state as well?

 

[Catholic90]

That’s different than your boys hiring other neighbor boys who mows lawns for $5 and then your boys charging $13 for the service.

Pax Christi tecum.

If my boys decided to expand their empire and paid the neigborhood boys $10 to mow lawns while my boys billed the neighbors for $20, and the neighbors were willing to pay $20, that would be OK. What if my boys provided gas? Equipment? Refreshments? A year-end bonus for being reliable?

That is how companies are built.

My BIL owns his own company. He sells business software and also services it. He charges his clients something along the lines of $180 per hour for service work. He in turn pays his technicians who actually do the service work something like $60 an hour. He also provides office space, benefits, etc. Is this wrong? No.

 

[newbetx]

You are not understanding the entire concept of how middlemen work in business and the fact that there is no such thing as price – price is whatever somebody is willing to pay for something. When I go to Sears, they do not tell me what Wal-Mart is selling the same item for. Nor should they either legally or morally. They are charging me what they believe is a reasonable amount. If they charge me too much, they will make less sales. Their goal is to find that price will will maximize their profits.

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus praised the servant who MAXIMIZED his return on his master’s money but condemned the servant who failed to show a return.

We understand middle men. They work between the producer and the retailer. This is NOT that. This person is working between the retailer and the end customer. There is a big difference. Middlemen are distibuters. This effort is price gouging at best.

 

[Catholic90]

We understand middle men. They work between the producer and the retailer. This is NOT that. This person is working between the retailer and the end customer. There is a big difference. Middlemen are distibuters. This effort is price gouging at best.

It is only price gouging IF this was the ONLY source of the item. It is not the only source. If people are WILLING to pay more, then that is their perogative! Maybe this reseller waited in line for a long time to buy this. He sacraficed the time, so shouldn’t he be paid for it IF someone else is willing to pay for it?

He is just being paid for his services of providing the item to the purchaser. If the purchaser really wanted it at a lower price, he could go wait in line himself or find some other avenue to buy it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

It is called capitalism. Everybody has to earn a living!

This is why I took pains in post #6 to point out the difference between Catholicism and capitalism.

The OP came here asking to find out what the Catholic Church taught about the morality of a particular transaction on eBay. I found the relevant section of the Catechism and replied. Now, if you want to place the principles of capitalism above the principles of Catholicism, that is your decision, but I think we all owe it to the OP to distinguish between Catholic teaching and personal dissent against that teaching in our replies.

 

[Caesar517]

Well the caveat is that you can’t just pay someone what they’re willing to take. If a man says he’ll take a pay of $6.00/hour but that isn’t enough for him to live on then that is wrong. That is why the Church has said what is required is a living wage, not a minimum wage. It’s not just about what someone is willing to accept. It is about what is just and charitable.

Pax Christi tecum.

What if the work that the man is willing to do is only worth $6 an hour? An employer certainly has an obligation to pay the workers fairly, but that doesn’t mean the wage must be enough to live on (not in today’s society, as it is possible to have more than one job). A person’s wage comes from the services they can provide to their employer, not the person’s needs.

 

[Caesar517]

This is why I took pains in post #6 to point out the difference between Catholicism and capitalism.

The OP came here asking to find out what the Catholic Church taught about the morality of a particular transaction on eBay. I found the relevant section of the Catechism and replied. Now, if you want to place the principles of capitalism above the principles of Catholicism, that is your decision, but I think we all owe it to the OP to distinguish between Catholic teaching and personal dissent against that teaching in our replies.

No one here has dissented against Catholic teaching. You use the two words as if they are mutually exclusive.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If you tell your customer of a lower price elsewhere, nobody will buy from you at the higher price and if the lower price is below the fair market price, then you will be driving people away from the fair market price to a lower price; which, by your own reasoning earlier, is also wrong to have them buying at below the fair market price.

A level playing field, where both parties have the same knowledge of the relevant facts, results in a fair and moral transaction.

When only one party has knowledge of a relevant fact, then the playing field is not level, and the informed party has the ability to take advantage of the uninformed party, resulting in an unfair and immoral transaction. The cure for this is to share the relevant information with the uninformed party.

Your hypothesis that sharing relevant information results in a non-level playing field is thus completely contrary to what it means to be a level playing field, by both Catholic and IRS definitions.

 

[Just_Lurking]

No one here has dissented against Catholic teaching. You use the two words as if they are mutually exclusive.

On the contrary, several posters have argued, based on the principles of capitalism and maximizing profit at all costs, that there is no moral obligation to inform the buyer that the Wii is available from Circuit City at a much lower price. This is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, as documented in CCC 2409.

 

[Just_Lurking]

If people are WILLING to pay more, then that is their perogative!

If the buyers are informed of all the relevant information known by the seller, then this is true. Otherwise, if the seller is taking advantage of the buyer’s ignorance, then the transaction is immoral.

Maybe this reseller waited in line for a long time to buy this. He sacraficed the time, so shouldn’t he be paid for it IF someone else is willing to pay for it?

The Catholic Church’s teaching accomodates this situation as well. The seller can state in the eBay ad: “The Wii is available for $250 at Circuit City if you are willing to wait for six hours in line.” That way, the buyer can make an informed decision of the value of the waiting time.

 

[Catholic90]

A level playing field, where both parties have the same knowledge of the relevant facts, results in a fair and moral transaction.

No one is HIDING any information. The information is THERE. At what point does the BUYER take responsibility and do his own research??

When only one party has knowledge of a relevant fact, then the playing field is not level, and the informed party has the ability to take advantage of the uninformed party, resulting in an unfair and immoral transaction. The cure for this is to share the relevant information with the uninformed party.

Following your logic, then the next time you shop for ANY item, that retailer is obligated to tell you of every other store’s price for the same item. (or is it YOUR responsibility to do your own research and know what the going rate is for any given item you wish to purchase… ).

So if Grocery store A is selling chicken at $3.98 a pound, is it that STORE’S responsibility to tell you Grocery Store B is selling it for $2.98 a pound this week??? Don’t think so…

Your hypothesis that sharing relevant information results in a non-level playing field is thus completely contrary to what it means to be a level playing field, by both Catholic and IRS definitions.

 

[Caesar517]

On the contrary, several posters have argued, based on the principles of capitalism and maximizing profit at all costs, that there is no moral obligation to inform the buyer that the Wii is available from Circuit City at a much lower price. This is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, as documented in CCC 2409.

“Maximizing profit at all cost” is neither a principle nor an accurate characterization of capitalism. I believe you are misinterpreting CCC#2409.

 

[mammallama]

Before you list on ebay I suggest you buy one of the systems and give it to a charity raffle.Perhaps that will make you feel better then you can ebay in peace.

 

[Catholic90]

Before you list on ebay I suggest you buy one of the systems and give it to a charity raffle.Perhaps that will make you feel better then you can ebay in peace.

Then you can deduct the donated amount from taxes!

Honestly, people, there is nothing wrong with making a profit.

 

[Feste_1242]

Now, if you want to place the principles of capitalism above the principles of Catholicism, that is your decision, but I think we all owe it to the OP to distinguish between Catholic teaching and personal dissent against that teaching in our replies.

For the love of God man, (literally) Catholicism and Capitalism are completely compatible. In fact, they work very well together.

When only one party has knowledge of a relevant fact, then the playing field is not level, and the informed party has the ability to take advantage of the uninformed party, resulting in an unfair and immoral transaction. The cure for this is to share the relevant information with the uninformed party.

It is immoral to have the *ability *to take advantage? No. The immoral act is when the seller *uses *the ability to take advantage. This is not the case in the scenario the OP presented. And the cure is for the buyer to do his own research, so he cannot be taken advantage of.

Your hypothesis that sharing relevant information results in a non-level playing field is thus completely contrary to what it means to be a level playing field, by both Catholic and IRS definitions.

…That wasn’t the hypothesis… At all…

On the contrary, several posters have argued, based on the principles of capitalism and maximizing profit at all costs, that there is no moral obligation to inform the buyer that the Wii is available from Circuit City at a much lower price. This is in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching, as documented in CCC 2409.

As Caesar517 has correctly pointed out, your definition of Capitalism is, for lack of more eloquent wording, completely whacked. We are not talking about maximizing profit at all costs, we are talking about having profit at all.

 

[MomblessedX3]

If you are really concerned with someone paying too much out of ignorance then set a buy it now price for what you think is the appropriate amount. If it goes for higher than I would say that is not your responsibility.

Making a profit is not a sin. A profit is how most people survive in life and business.

JMHO