Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[DBT]

It's not that construction workers are 'exploited' but that - as pointed out - there has been a steady shift away from collective bargaining to individual contracts or workplace 'agreements' where each worker is presented with a contract specifying rates and conditions, so much overtime to be done, no strikes, etc, which they are to sign as a condition of employment, a legal document.

At the time, the Howard government wanted to go even further down that road but they were voted out.

The point being; there is a power imbalance between management and individual workers that allows the management to more or less set terms and conditions in their own favour. Which helps raise profit margins for the business, but results in a reduction in disposable income for workers.

Yeah, but we would expect wages to go down as a result of automation. That's across the board in all jobs that doesn't work with automating things specifically. Construction workers are not special. If you want to make out the bosses of construction workers as extra evil we should see the salaries of construction workers flatten out more than any low skilled work. It looks to me like they're just responding to changes in the work market in general?

Unions getting weaker is a result of their successes in the first half of the 20'th century. They're not as necessary any longer. When your job is vanishing because of robots taking them over, then striking is just going to accelerate the introduction of robots. It's not a great time to be a protesting worker.

It's still wrong to make striking illegal. It's the only weapon workers have against an exploitative employer. My point is that even without that law I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

Sure, automation is an ever growing issue. But the problem of individual contracts, declining union membership, legality of strike action, etc, began well before automation came into play. Workers have been losing hard won pay rates and benefits for decades, casualization of the workforce, erosion of penalty rates and so on;

''Cuts to penalty rates will hasten the "mass casualisation" of Australia's workforce, leading to a decrease in job security, less paid leave and more workplace stress, a new report warns.

The McKell Institute says the Fair Work Commission's "alarming" decision to cut penalty rates for a range of retail, hospitality and fast food workers will further discourage employees from pursuing secure part-time or full-time work, pushing them instead into less secure but higher-paying casual jobs.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not that construction workers are 'exploited' but that - as pointed out - there has been a steady shift away from collective bargaining to individual contracts or workplace 'agreements' where each worker is presented with a contract specifying rates and conditions, so much overtime to be done, no strikes, etc, which they are to sign as a condition of employment, a legal document.

At the time, the Howard government wanted to go even further down that road but they were voted out.

The point being; there is a power imbalance between management and individual workers that allows the management to more or less set terms and conditions in their own favour. Which helps raise profit margins for the business, but results in a reduction in disposable income for workers.

Yeah, but we would expect wages to go down as a result of automation. That's across the board in all jobs that doesn't work with automating things specifically. Construction workers are not special. If you want to make out the bosses of construction workers as extra evil we should see the salaries of construction workers flatten out more than any low skilled work. It looks to me like they're just responding to changes in the work market in general?

Unions getting weaker is a result of their successes in the first half of the 20'th century. They're not as necessary any longer. When your job is vanishing because of robots taking them over, then striking is just going to accelerate the introduction of robots. It's not a great time to be a protesting worker.

It's still wrong to make striking illegal. It's the only weapon workers have against an exploitative employer. My point is that even without that law I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

Sure, automation is an ever growing issue. But the problem of individual contracts, declining union membership, legality of strike action, etc, began well before automation came into play. Workers have been losing hard won pay rates and benefits for decades, casualization of the workforce, erosion of penalty rates and so on;

''Cuts to penalty rates will hasten the "mass casualisation" of Australia's workforce, leading to a decrease in job security, less paid leave and more workplace stress, a new report warns.

The McKell Institute says the Fair Work Commission's "alarming" decision to cut penalty rates for a range of retail, hospitality and fast food workers will further discourage employees from pursuing secure part-time or full-time work, pushing them instead into less secure but higher-paying casual jobs.

People being pushed into casual jobs is a result of unionisation. That's inevitable. It has to do with incentives.

This is one of the reasons I want a deregulated market. No matter what the government messes with it will have unintended consequences that usually hurts the workers. That's why I think the best way to do socialism is simply to give poor people money. Have generous unemployment benefits. If the jobs are so shitty that people prefer being unemployed, it will give companies and incentive to make their jobs attractive. And to pay for this with taxes. Everybody wins.

 

[ZiprHead]

That doesn't mean the companies themselves are that much bigger, just that they are that much more valuable.

Has GE built ten more plants for every one in production since forty years ago? General Motors? Boeing? McDonalds? Anyone?

It's stock market manipulation, plain and simple.

I already explained what's going on--mergers. GE didn't build a whole bunch more plants. They bought other companies. We have fewer, bigger companies.

And note that it doesn't need to be 10x--the relationship between company size and CEO pay isn't linear.

That's another issue. Mergers and antitrust regulation haven't been meaningfully employed in decades. Buying out your competition used to be frowned upon.

 

[ZiprHead]

CEO expectations are raised whenever another company is offering more, they feel that this is the current rate that they themselves should aspire to....consequently, unlike ordinary workers who have little or no leverage when it comes to pay negotiations, the executive class enjoy hefty remuneration packages while wages for workers languish in the doldrums. One is a race to the top, the other with incomes and conditions steadily eroding away, gradually losing past gains.

The fact is that many of these top level ceos also sit on the board of directors of other companies. They all scratch each others backs, so to speak. You give me a big raise and I'll do the same for you.

BlackRock takes aim at CEOs serving on other companies' boards

 

[ZiprHead]

FREE TRADE > more competition = increase in production = increase in prosperity for all

What is wrong and bad is an obscene concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage of the worlds population. Which is bad for society, the economy, ethics and human decency....

And social mobility.

Assuming there really is an "obscene concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small percentage," nothing about this will be improved by bashing the world's employers, targeting the more desperate producers for elimination, which is what "fair trade" does or tries to do. Shutting down companies which pay low wages won't make society or the economy or ethics or human decency or social mobility any better.

Most of the targets of "fair trade" are smaller marginal companies which are struggling to survive, not the top 1%. There's no reason to believe "fair trade" would do anything but INCREASE the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the rich and powerful. It would eliminate companies not a part of the rich and powerful, and it would eliminate (or does eliminate) jobs of the most desperate poor people who will end up worse off, because "free trade" allowed them a low-paying job, while "fair trade" leaves them with no job at all.

No one has denied this or answered how the world is made better by eliminating these jobs and this production.

Is there really more competition though? As I said above, antitrust merger regulation hasn't been used effectively in decades.

 

[ZiprHead]

Eliminating employers won't make desperate workers better off.

Who said anything about eliminating employers?

 

[Jarhyn]

Eliminating employers won't make desperate workers better off.

Who said anything about eliminating employers?

In Lumpen's bizarro world, making shareholders less rich or the activity of economic parisitism less profitable eliminates the business entirely.

Because obviously, it's not worth making only a million dollars when you could be making a billion dollars instead.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That doesn't mean the companies themselves are that much bigger, just that they are that much more valuable.

Has GE built ten more plants for every one in production since forty years ago? General Motors? Boeing? McDonalds? Anyone?

It's stock market manipulation, plain and simple.

I already explained what's going on--mergers. GE didn't build a whole bunch more plants. They bought other companies. We have fewer, bigger companies.

And note that it doesn't need to be 10x--the relationship between company size and CEO pay isn't linear.

That's another issue. Mergers and antitrust regulation haven't been meaningfully employed in decades. Buying out your competition used to be frowned upon.

It's not just buying the competition, it's buying the supply chain. I would like to see some tough rules against buying the competition--a company that owns more than say 10% of a market should not be allowed to buy a competitor unless said competitor is insolvent. However, that has no effect on the supply chain consolidation. Look at Amazon--they're buying up suppliers they like, they're not buying e-tailers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Eliminating employers won't make desperate workers better off.

Who said anything about eliminating employers?

That's what you're trying to do when you say a company that doesn't pay enough shouldn't exist. You're not going to make better jobs, you're going to make unemployment.

 

[ZiprHead]

Eliminating employers won't make desperate workers better off.

Who said anything about eliminating employers?

That's what you're trying to do when you say a company that doesn't pay enough shouldn't exist. You're not going to make better jobs, you're going to make unemployment.

Who said a company that doesn't pay enough shouldn't exist?

 

[DBT]

Sure, automation is an ever growing issue. But the problem of individual contracts, declining union membership, legality of strike action, etc, began well before automation came into play. Workers have been losing hard won pay rates and benefits for decades, casualization of the workforce, erosion of penalty rates and so on;

''Cuts to penalty rates will hasten the "mass casualisation" of Australia's workforce, leading to a decrease in job security, less paid leave and more workplace stress, a new report warns.

The McKell Institute says the Fair Work Commission's "alarming" decision to cut penalty rates for a range of retail, hospitality and fast food workers will further discourage employees from pursuing secure part-time or full-time work, pushing them instead into less secure but higher-paying casual jobs.

People being pushed into casual jobs is a result of unionisation. That's inevitable. It has to do with incentives.

This is one of the reasons I want a deregulated market. No matter what the government messes with it will have unintended consequences that usually hurts the workers. That's why I think the best way to do socialism is simply to give poor people money. Have generous unemployment benefits. If the jobs are so shitty that people prefer being unemployed, it will give companies and incentive to make their jobs attractive. And to pay for this with taxes. Everybody wins.

People are not being pushed into casual jobs because of unionization, but because a lack of it. The erosion of collective bargaining and strike action has increased the power imbalance between individual workers and management.

As shown, workers are not better off, lower pay, lack of job security, home loans more difficult to obtain, etc.

The Howard Government tried to extend industrial relations reforms but luckily the voters disagreed with their 'reforms' and voted them out:

Quote:
''Millions of Australians will face new conditions of employment as the Prime Minister realises his vision for radical industrial relations reform.

A dramatic rewrite of Australia's workplace laws will strip the basic safety net for millions of workers to a handful of conditions and remove the right of appeal for people who claim to have been sacked unfairly.''

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FAIR TRADE Magic Wand will give everyone more wealth (more money to spend), happiness -- The sky's the limit!

If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc., with the inevitable flow-on effect of . . .

Whatever this means, let's assume it's true. (It's always nice to have some money rather than starving -- who can argue with that?) So, however true this might be, it's no reason to force employers to pay their workers more than the value of their work, as determined by market supply-and-demand. It might be a good reason why all producers should improve their performance, so there's more produced, at lower prices, so that there's more stuff to spend money on. But there's no reason to think anything will be made better by punishing employers with emotion-driven demands that they pay workers beyond what is profitable for the business.

If you need to single out some victim group and fall all over yourself feeling sorry for them and demanding that they be given some costly benefit which the rest of society has to pay for, don't do it by bashing one group, like employers, many of whom are struggling to survive, and making it more difficult for them to hire the workers they need, by driving up their costs. Driving up the cost of production in order to subsidize a victim group isn't going to produce a net benefit for the whole society. The entire nation has to pay that higher cost, including millions of the poor who are consumers who must pay those higher prices.

. . . with the inevitable flow-on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

What "suppressed economic activity"? This seems to say that spreading more money around generates new "economic activity" which was suppressed earlier because someone (workers?) weren't paid enough money, so the extra money they circulate generates more "economic activity" (as a result of that new demand from their spending).

But it's not true that infusing more money into circulation automatically generates new net production. What it does is drive up prices, if there was no improved performance by producers. When the money is invested in new production, it's possible the economy improves, from that new spending (investing), if it's GOOD investing (which often it is not).

What we know for sure is that if some consumers are just given more money to spend, it will cause inflation > higher cost of living and higher cost of production > lower living standard, not higher. And if the cost of it is paid by employers who are targeted for punishment, because they're a minority which is easy to scapegoat, this will drive down production and lead to less employment.

There can be no benefit from increasing wages to any workers unless it's directly related to IMPROVED PERFORMANCE by those particular workers. Because it's only the improved performance or better production which can improve the general living standard, not just putting money into the pockets of select worker-victims who succeeded in pandering to President Trump (or President Biden or Bernie Sanders or other demagogue) for benefits to their group which everyone else has to pay for.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Sure, if there's a total increase in everyone's wealth, so everyone has more stuff which is magically produced somewhere because Karl Marx or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump waved their China-bashing magic wand -- Sure, if you know of a way to magically produce all those goodies we want, so everyone can have their own mansion or the "American Dream" or whatever else they think they're entitled to -- Go for it!

I want the moon! Why can't I have it? If you want it too, then let our "President" (or "Prime Minister" or whoever) provide another moon, and another, for everyone who wants their own moon. Isn't that "fair trade"? Why not? I can have whatever I want, and you can have whatever you want. Anything less isn't FAIR!

Whereas "free trade" isn't good enough, because it requires us to compete, to improve our performance, instead of promising us the workers' paradise we're entitled to.

 

[ZiprHead]

If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc., with the inevitable flow-on effect of . . .

Whatever this means, let's assume it's true.

There's a difference of opinion on that?

 

[DBT]

Whatever this means, let's assume it's true. (It's always nice to have some money rather than starving -- who can argue with that?) So, however true this might be, it's no reason to force employers to pay their workers more than the value of their work, as determined by market supply-and-demand. It might be a good reason why all producers should improve their performance, so there's more produced, at lower prices, so that there's more stuff to spend money on. But there's no reason to think anything will be made better by punishing employers with emotion-driven demands that they pay workers beyond what is profitable for the business.

If you need to single out some victim group and fall all over yourself feeling sorry for them and demanding that they be given some costly benefit which the rest of society has to pay for, don't do it by bashing one group, like employers, many of whom are struggling to survive, and making it more difficult for them to hire the workers they need, by driving up their costs. Driving up the cost of production in order to subsidize a victim group isn't going to produce a net benefit for the whole society. The entire nation has to pay that higher cost, including millions of the poor who are consumers who must pay those higher prices.



What "suppressed economic activity"? This seems to say that spreading more money around generates new "economic activity" which was suppressed earlier because someone (workers?) weren't paid enough money, so the extra money they circulate generates more "economic activity" (as a result of that new demand from their spending).

But it's not true that infusing more money into circulation automatically generates new net production. What it does is drive up prices, if there was no improved performance by producers. When the money is invested in new production, it's possible the economy improves, from that new spending (investing), if it's GOOD investing (which often it is not).

What we know for sure is that if some consumers are just given more money to spend, it will cause inflation > higher cost of living and higher cost of production > lower living standard, not higher. And if the cost of it is paid by employers who are targeted for punishment, because they're a minority which is easy to scapegoat, this will drive down production and lead to less employment.

There can be no benefit from increasing wages to any workers unless it's directly related to IMPROVED PERFORMANCE by those particular workers. Because it's only the improved performance or better production which can improve the general living standard, not just putting money into the pockets of select worker-victims who succeeded in pandering to President Trump (or President Biden or Bernie Sanders or other demagogue) for benefits to their group which everyone else has to pay for.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Sure, if there's a total increase in everyone's wealth, so everyone has more stuff which is magically produced somewhere because Karl Marx or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump waved their China-bashing magic wand -- Sure, if you know of a way to magically produce all those goodies we want, so everyone can have their own mansion or the "American Dream" or whatever else they think they're entitled to -- Go for it!

I want the moon! Why can't I have it? If you want it too, then let our "President" (or "Prime Minister" or whoever) provide another moon, and another, for everyone who wants their own moon. Isn't that "fair trade"? Why not? I can have whatever I want, and you can have whatever you want. Anything less isn't FAIR!

Whereas "free trade" isn't good enough, because it requires us to compete, to improve our performance, instead of promising us the workers' paradise we're entitled to.

Nobody is asking for the Moon. Reasonable pay for work performed is sufficient. Necessary work, work that keeps society running, yet too often poorly paid. In a wealthy developed nation, that is a truly shameful thing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whatever this means, let's assume it's true. (It's always nice to have some money rather than starving -- who can argue with that?) So, however true this might be, it's no reason to force employers to pay their workers more than the value of their work, as determined by market supply-and-demand. It might be a good reason why all producers should improve their performance, so there's more produced, at lower prices, so that there's more stuff to spend money on. But there's no reason to think anything will be made better by punishing employers with emotion-driven demands that they pay workers beyond what is profitable for the business.

If you need to single out some victim group and fall all over yourself feeling sorry for them and demanding that they be given some costly benefit which the rest of society has to pay for, don't do it by bashing one group, like employers, many of whom are struggling to survive, and making it more difficult for them to hire the workers they need, by driving up their costs. Driving up the cost of production in order to subsidize a victim group isn't going to produce a net benefit for the whole society. The entire nation has to pay that higher cost, including millions of the poor who are consumers who must pay those higher prices.



What "suppressed economic activity"? This seems to say that spreading more money around generates new "economic activity" which was suppressed earlier because someone (workers?) weren't paid enough money, so the extra money they circulate generates more "economic activity" (as a result of that new demand from their spending).

But it's not true that infusing more money into circulation automatically generates new net production. What it does is drive up prices, if there was no improved performance by producers. When the money is invested in new production, it's possible the economy improves, from that new spending (investing), if it's GOOD investing (which often it is not).

What we know for sure is that if some consumers are just given more money to spend, it will cause inflation > higher cost of living and higher cost of production > lower living standard, not higher. And if the cost of it is paid by employers who are targeted for punishment, because they're a minority which is easy to scapegoat, this will drive down production and lead to less employment.

There can be no benefit from increasing wages to any workers unless it's directly related to IMPROVED PERFORMANCE by those particular workers. Because it's only the improved performance or better production which can improve the general living standard, not just putting money into the pockets of select worker-victims who succeeded in pandering to President Trump (or President Biden or Bernie Sanders or other demagogue) for benefits to their group which everyone else has to pay for.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Sure, if there's a total increase in everyone's wealth, so everyone has more stuff which is magically produced somewhere because Karl Marx or Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump waved their China-bashing magic wand -- Sure, if you know of a way to magically produce all those goodies we want, so everyone can have their own mansion or the "American Dream" or whatever else they think they're entitled to -- Go for it!

I want the moon! Why can't I have it? If you want it too, then let our "President" (or "Prime Minister" or whoever) provide another moon, and another, for everyone who wants their own moon. Isn't that "fair trade"? Why not? I can have whatever I want, and you can have whatever you want. Anything less isn't FAIR!

Whereas "free trade" isn't good enough, because it requires us to compete, to improve our performance, instead of promising us the workers' paradise we're entitled to.

Nobody is asking for the Moon. Reasonable pay for work performed is sufficient. Necessary work, work that keeps society running, yet too often poorly paid. In a wealthy developed nation, that is a truly shameful thing.

Apparently to Lumpen it's not shameful to take advantage of the downtrodden so you can get incredibly wealthy. It's an admirable trait.

Still wondering what you do for a living, Lumpen.

 

[ZiprHead]

That doesn't mean the companies themselves are that much bigger, just that they are that much more valuable.

Has GE built ten more plants for every one in production since forty years ago? General Motors? Boeing? McDonalds? Anyone?

It's stock market manipulation, plain and simple.

I already explained what's going on--mergers. GE didn't build a whole bunch more plants. They bought other companies. We have fewer, bigger companies.

And note that it doesn't need to be 10x--the relationship between company size and CEO pay isn't linear.

I'd like a citation for that, that they're now 940% bigger due to acquisitions.

All along you've been telling us these ceos are so smart and uniquely qualified to run these companies that they deserve the massive remuneration they get. Now, not so much. They just buy out their competition. The brainpans on these guys must be massive to come up with that.

 

[Jayjay]

That doesn't mean the companies themselves are that much bigger, just that they are that much more valuable.

Has GE built ten more plants for every one in production since forty years ago? General Motors? Boeing? McDonalds? Anyone?

It's stock market manipulation, plain and simple.

I already explained what's going on--mergers. GE didn't build a whole bunch more plants. They bought other companies. We have fewer, bigger companies.

And note that it doesn't need to be 10x--the relationship between company size and CEO pay isn't linear.

I think you are not making any sense with either of these arguments. First, if GE or any other companies in the top 350 are bigger because of mergers, it doesn't imply they wouldn't be bigger also in terms of actual assets: plants, employees, and so on. And second, while the CEO pay is demonstrably not linear with company size, as indicated by 25x growth in their stock value, if you posit that CEO pay is larger because the companies are larger, but that the relationship isn't linear, you're setting up a claim that cannot be disproven and could indeed be made with almost any indicator.

"CEO pay is larger because the GDP is larger, but the relationship is not linear"
"CEO pay is larger because of the number of employees of the company is higher, but the relationship is not linear"
"CEO pay is larger because of global warming, but the relationship is not linear"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you are not making any sense with either of these arguments. First, if GE or any other companies in the top 350 are bigger because of mergers, it doesn't imply they wouldn't be bigger also in terms of actual assets: plants, employees, and so on. And second, while the CEO pay is demonstrably not linear with company size, as indicated by 25x growth in their stock value, if you posit that CEO pay is larger because the companies are larger, but that the relationship isn't linear, you're setting up a claim that cannot be disproven and could indeed be made with almost any indicator.

"CEO pay is larger because the GDP is larger, but the relationship is not linear"
"CEO pay is larger because of the number of employees of the company is higher, but the relationship is not linear"
"CEO pay is larger because of global warming, but the relationship is not linear"

No--you can look at CEO pay vs company size. Unfortunately, I haven't found the data again--I'm pretty sure I originally found it in a book.

 

[DBT]

Nobody is asking for the Moon. Reasonable pay for work performed is sufficient. Necessary work, work that keeps society running, yet too often poorly paid. In a wealthy developed nation, that is a truly shameful thing.

Apparently to Lumpen it's not shameful to take advantage of the downtrodden so you can get incredibly wealthy. It's an admirable trait.

Still wondering what you do for a living, Lumpen.

Based on his arguments for Christ and miracles in the religion forum, apparently he is a Christian. Which makes the attitude, exploiting others for personal gain, some getting extremely rich while others struggle, quite puzzling.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

FREE TRADE = leave individual buyers & sellers free to make their decisions > most efficient production > maximum social benefit

FAIR TRADE = Something somewhere is not perfect, so launch an assault on all employers (who must be to blame for it) and drive up the cost of living for everyone.

It's not Keynsianism, it's reality. If people don't have the money, they cannot spend on luxuries like eating out, going to a movie, etc, with the inevitable flow on effect of that suppressed economic activity.

With confidence and money in their pockets, people spend, enjoy life, the economy and society thrives. Everyone is doing well.

Spending on luxuries, by definition, only slows down the economy. They're fundamentally unnecessary purchases. The reason why we're able to buy so many luxuries is because the sectors producing the things we actually need, food, electricity, housing, clothing, IT, domestic appliances, medicine etc, and the industrial complex (now heavily robotisized) making all that easier. It functions as a leverage lifting the rest of society. It's easy to forget in our modern age because those sectors are hyper effective now. The minutes we need to work a day to generate enough purchasing power to buy the necessities is so small we can easily get the idea that it's all about just buying shit, (we don't need). But people exchanging goods nobody needs is just like a children's game. The children feel they are helping. But they're not.

Today most people are unnecessary in the economy. They are adding nothing of actual value. We might value them anyway because we now have a taste for luxuries. But we'd all be fine without hairdressers.

You are treating the game as the goal, keeping everybody in the economy feel like they're helping, even though they're not. Yes, it's a more pleasant society. I'm for it. For democracy reasons etc. But it's not helping the economy.

But we're shit at respecting the things that are important. And it's a problem today. In India they have a weak welfare programmes and protection of people in trouble. So they produce more engineers than anybody else. China is also good. In the West we have a perpetual shortage of engineers. Our relative elevation of luxury consumption is causing our economy harm.

And they will inevitably lead to China and India racing past the West in affluence. The reason why they're so good at correctly identifying what jobs adds value to the economy is because they don't have a huge value surplus to take from. So they, out of necessity, have to focus on the right things to survive at all. But that will soon change. And since they're less democratic than us their leaders won't get swayed by populistic left wing Keynsian rhetoric, which is basically, spread luxuries around because it's great for everyone. When it's not.

.
When I said luxuries I didn't mean BMW's, Porshes or Mansions on the Hill.

I meant my luxuries for working class people, a cafe meal, a few beers at the pub, a night at the movies, etc.

OK, maybe there's something to complain about here. Someone somewhere is a little short and has to forego the extra night out, the extra movie or beer at the pub. Probably everyone can agree that the world is not perfect for everyone, and some folks have it a little rough. But how do we get from this to the "fair trade" solution of a kick in the butt to employers, many of whom are not in the top 1% rich and powerful? (And most of the employers kicked in the butt by "fair trade" are the smaller ones struggling to survive, which is why they try to cut costs, like labor cost.)

It's the extremely rich who spend at the high end of town with their expensive cars and mansions, which still stimulates the economy to a point, an upper end bubble with a bit of trickle down.

But are far fewer super rich than there are ordinary people struggling to make ends meet, and that's where the money is sorely needed. The super rich are not struggling.

Whatever the problem is here, assuming there is one, the solution to it is not to force employers to pay higher wages than the level set by the free market, by supply-and-demand -- higher than is paid to the sweatshop workers, e.g., paid according to what is profitable for the business. If supply-and-demand is overruled in favor of a "fair trade" theory which pities workers and forces employers to pay at a higher rate than the market level, this actually ends up making MOST workers, and almost all the population WORSE OFF rather than better off. Because it forces employers to shut down some of their production, which was made more costly and thus less profitable by this interference, and so the overall economy is made worse off than before, when all the costs were determined by the market left alone to set the wages and prices according to supply-and-demand only.

When the buyers and sellers (e.g., employers and wage-earners) are left alone to set the prices according to supply-and-demand (the natural conditions which lead to the production transactions), this produces the best results for ALL the economy, for ALL the consumers, including the poor. It's the performance of the work, or the efficiency of the production, which provides benefit for all the people, not a disruption of the work from some outside entity presuming to impose its judgment onto the buyers and sellers to overrule them.

If these players were doing something injurious to others in the society, like polluting the environment, that would be different -- in that case the outside interference is necessary in order to protect the interests of the outsiders. But when outsiders are not affected by the production going on, then the best result overall comes from leaving the players alone to do the production according to the terms they choose, each one individually choosing his/her own terms. What's good for one buyer or seller might not be good for another. No outsider is competent to interfere and impose standard terms onto ALL the buyers and sellers, as if they are a monolith, and as if the outsider is of a superior class to prescribe the True Doctrine onto the players who are inferior and incompetent to make decisions. No one has ever proved, or given any evidence, that the "fair trade" outsider is superior or more competent to set the terms of the production.

So even if some working-class persons need a beer at the pub (or movie, or whatever), and there is some legitimate need there, it doesn't follow that all employers must be punished and have costs imposed onto them which then impose costs onto ALL consumers and thus drive up the cost of living for everyone.

So you can seek a way to help that poor guy who needs better access to the pub, or to a beer, etc., but nothing is made better by scapegoating all employers as a class, because they're a minority and easy to target and beat up on in order to provide some workers better access to that beer they need. You need to take the time to find something more thoughtful than a mere knee-jerk outburst-assault against the employer class, as a scapegoat to blame, thereby driving up the cost of living for everyone.

There is no evidence that this assault on employers as a class has produced any net benefit for society.