Why is FAIR TRADE better than FREE TRADE?

[ZiprHead]

Lumpen win the internet for the stupidest fucking analogy ever displayed.

 

[Bomb#20]

I have pointed out that both are necessary,...

And WHY couldn't the workers do this themselves?...

...And yet here you are, once again implying that the CEOs and the owners' representatives are unnecessary, that they're just obstacles, and that only labor contributes to production.

Oops! I got you and Jarhyn mixed up. Sorry, my bad. Criticism withdrawn.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You forget that 'better machines' are more often than not designed by workers, built by workers, operated and maintained by workers using parts designed and produced by still other workers....which is what management hires people to do because the CEO and board of directors cannot actually do any of this themselves.

How do you calculate value, oh, defender of greed and avarice?

And a lot of "missing" money ends up in the hands of those workers that build the better machines. It doesn't just go to the workers making the final product like it used to.

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

You're preaching rather than addressing the point.

In the old days it was worker + materials = product.

Now it's worker + lots of tools + materials = product.

The cost (constant dollars) of the materials is similar, most products the price is similar. Note, however, the presence of lots of tools--those cost money and inherently must reduce the % of the product price goes to that worker. The money goes to other workers that didn't exist in the old days. I am one of those other workers--even 40 years ago my job simply didn't exist (yes, there were programmers. We weren't on the factory floor, though.) My income has to come from somewhere and where else exists but a portion of what the product sells for?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 30310

Except that's not what happens. Those low jobs more and more end up being performed by a machine.

Which may not be sustainable if a significant percentage of the population don't have a job or an income.

There will come a day when the less capable people aren't suitable for any job. That point hasn't been reached, though.

 

[Bomb#20]

View attachment 30310

I take it you think that's a good argument. Note that Vivian is treating "your current job needs to be done" as a true/false condition. Where on earth did she get such a notion? Who is the Supreme Needer who divides jobs into the needed and the unneeded? Need for jobs to be done is a continuum. Some jobs are more needed than others.

If an employer gets $6 more income per hour from customers when some job is being performed than when it isn't, does that qualify as "your current job needs to be done"? If that means it qualifies, and if that qualifies as a reason the person doing that job "deserves" to be paid $15/hour, why should the employer be responsible for providing the extra $9/hour? Does the employer "need" to lose $9/hour? On what possible basis can you argue that work that produces $6 and costs $15 is a job that "needs to be done"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You talk of gatekeeping resources as though it's a negative, something that prevents production. But let's imagine nobody was gatekeeping the resources workers need for production.

Oh, but if you get the capitalists out of the picture there are infinite resources available. (If the supply were finite you would have to measure to see if there's enough. Since they dismiss any attempt to measure that can only mean the supply is infinite.)

The designer and builder identify the resources they need to create the machine; they collect some, say, sheet metal; they start implementing her idea; and when it's half-built some third worker, not involved in building the machine, comes over and walks off with the remaining sheet metal to build his own project with.

I think they figure everyone will get their metal from the metal factory, not taking it from each other.

Gatekeeping is essential for accomplishing anything in a world where resources are not infinite. You say CEOs and boards never gave you a reason to do anything. Well, if you ever worked in a company with a CEO and a board, then yes, they bloody well did. If you believe otherwise you're a faith-based initiative.

Yeah, the incentive to do something is called a wage.

 

[DBT]

-- "C'mon, have a heart, you dirty fucking greedy capitalist pig!"

Then make the fucking machine, or pay the . . .

No, don't make the machine unless the machine can do the job at lower cost, which it cannot (yet).

. . . or pay the goddam worker.

They do pay the worker what the market (supply-and-demand) says the work is worth, i.e., what the employer is willing to pay and what the worker has agreed to as the minimum sufficient.

The alternative to this is to just eliminate the job, because it's not worth enough to pay anymore than the current wage. Why should the worker be paid anymore than the work is worth, as dictated by market supply-and-demand?

Or, what is the benefit of eliminating the job altogether and denying the worker this choice? How will that bring the worker up out of poverty?

The employer did not cause the worker's condition of poverty, so how is it the employer's responsibility to end this condition? What if the employer is also poor?


Also the original "If you want a living wage" quote is incorrect. The proper translation of the spin is not

"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but I think whoever does that job deserves to live in poverty."

Rather, it's
"I acknowledge that your current job needs to be done, but the need is so marginal that it's not worth more than $1/day ($1/hour etc.)."

So, "get a better job" means "get a job which is more needed," or "get a job for which the current available workers are not in such oversupply."

And what about volunteer work ? ? ?

I.e., work done at ZERO wage? How are you not excluding all VOLUNTEER WORK with the above moralistic judgmentalism? No one yet has answered this, though it has been asked several times now.

If you're against cheap labor and exploitation, then why are you not condemning all VOLUNTEER work? the cheapest lowest-paid labor there can be? The reason no one is answering this is simply that cheap labor is good for the economy, despite all the moralistic foaming-at-the-mouth preaching of Vivian@Suchnerve and other "fair trade" hypocrites.

You ignore self interest....as pointed out numerous times - too many times - it is in the interest of business managers to reduce the running cost of their bisiness in order to maximize profits.

One way to do achieve that aim is to keep wage cost to a minimum.

That can be achieved by exploiting cheap labour in developing nations or suppressing pay rates in developed nations.

That, as shown by the given stats and examples of exploitation, is how it works. Individual workers have poor leverage, so are open to exploitation in the interest of higher profits.

You defend the practices of the rich and denigrate workers.

 

[DBT]

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

You're preaching rather than addressing the point.

In the old days it was worker + materials = product.

Now it's worker + lots of tools + materials = product.

The cost (constant dollars) of the materials is similar, most products the price is similar. Note, however, the presence of lots of tools--those cost money and inherently must reduce the % of the product price goes to that worker. The money goes to other workers that didn't exist in the old days. I am one of those other workers--even 40 years ago my job simply didn't exist (yes, there were programmers. We weren't on the factory floor, though.) My income has to come from somewhere and where else exists but a portion of what the product sells for?

I have supported what I say, history, stats, examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers, which you ignore, only to repeat your baseless assertions.

You have no case to argue. Workers are open to exploitation. There are countless examples of this. The rich get richer while the average wage has languished for decades. Workers are, as shown, not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

 

[ZiprHead]

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

You're preaching rather than addressing the point.

In the old days it was worker + materials = product.

Now it's worker + lots of tools + materials = product.

The cost (constant dollars) of the materials is similar, most products the price is similar. Note, however, the presence of lots of tools--those cost money and inherently must reduce the % of the product price goes to that worker. The money goes to other workers that didn't exist in the old days. I am one of those other workers--even 40 years ago my job simply didn't exist (yes, there were programmers. We weren't on the factory floor, though.) My income has to come from somewhere and where else exists but a portion of what the product sells for?

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/PZnGWJ_6BwU[/YOUTUBE]

Yup, no tools here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

You're preaching rather than addressing the point.

In the old days it was worker + materials = product.

Now it's worker + lots of tools + materials = product.

The cost (constant dollars) of the materials is similar, most products the price is similar. Note, however, the presence of lots of tools--those cost money and inherently must reduce the % of the product price goes to that worker. The money goes to other workers that didn't exist in the old days. I am one of those other workers--even 40 years ago my job simply didn't exist (yes, there were programmers. We weren't on the factory floor, though.) My income has to come from somewhere and where else exists but a portion of what the product sells for?

I have supported what I say, history, stats, examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers, which you ignore, only to repeat your baseless assertions.

You have no case to argue. Workers are open to exploitation. There are countless examples of this. The rich get richer while the average wage has languished for decades. Workers are, as shown, not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

You're still not addressing anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Workers improved their lot through collective bargaining, as is their right, but for a number of reasons workers have been losing their share of the wealth they help to create, even while the rich have increased their own share.

Mechanization is increasingly becoming a factor, which creates another set of problems for workers, the economy and society in general.

You're preaching rather than addressing the point.

In the old days it was worker + materials = product.

Now it's worker + lots of tools + materials = product.

The cost (constant dollars) of the materials is similar, most products the price is similar. Note, however, the presence of lots of tools--those cost money and inherently must reduce the % of the product price goes to that worker. The money goes to other workers that didn't exist in the old days. I am one of those other workers--even 40 years ago my job simply didn't exist (yes, there were programmers. We weren't on the factory floor, though.) My income has to come from somewhere and where else exists but a portion of what the product sells for?

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/PZnGWJ_6BwU[/YOUTUBE]

Yup, no tools here.

All the work is being done with simple hand tools. The only substantial tool in there is the conveyor belts. Contrast that with my former employer's factory--we had an overhead conveyor like in your video, but most tasks in the shop was performed on a machine that cost at least as much as a year's wages for it's operator(s), the most expensive machines cost more like 10x the wage of it's operator(s). I have not been on the factory floor of my current employer but my impression is the machinery cost per worker is substantially higher.

 

[DBT]

All the work is being done with simple hand tools. The only substantial tool in there is the conveyor belts. Contrast that with my former employer's factory--we had an overhead conveyor like in your video, but most tasks in the shop was performed on a machine that cost at least as much as a year's wages for it's operator(s), the most expensive machines cost more like 10x the wage of it's operator(s). I have not been on the factory floor of my current employer but my impression is the machinery cost per worker is substantially higher.

Machinery cost does not paint the full picture of production, profits, market value of work performed, etc...

 

[DBT]

I have supported what I say, history, stats, examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers, which you ignore, only to repeat your baseless assertions.

You have no case to argue. Workers are open to exploitation. There are countless examples of this. The rich get richer while the average wage has languished for decades. Workers are, as shown, not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

You're still not addressing anything.

I have, but you don't want to face the facts, that workers have been losing their market share of production even while the rich have been increasing their wealth in leaps and bounds...that this situation is not sustainable in the long term, probably not even in the medium term: the next fifty years or so.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Redistribute "surplus profit" to ALL society, not to low-value workers who did nothing to generate the extra wealth.

A clear case of double standards. Seemingly limitless pay for the top end of town, but heaven forbid a modest pay rise for the average worker.

I have yet to see an analysis that realizes there are three pieces to the pie, not two. Any analysis that assumes two is hopelessly flawed.

No one has denied there are three pieces to the pie. You continue to deny that the upper management/ceo piece of the pie is getting larger while the worker piece of the pie is getting smaller.

The worker piece is getting smaller because the worker VALUE is decreasing compared to the increasing pie. The wealth is increasing, but the average worker, 90% of them, are not contributing to it. Rather, it is only the specialists, higher-level workers, engineers, scientists, who are creating the new wealth, by creating better technology for the workers, while the common workers are doing nothing they didn't do before -- just following instructions, learning a few new buttons to push -- and their replaceability is INCREASING rather than decreasing,

i.e., they are becoming MORE EXPENDABLE, less needed in order to generate the new wealth being produced =

they are becoming less valuable than before, so their wage level should be declining, or stagnating along with their declining or stagnating value and their INCREASING REPLACEABILITY.

But meanwhile, is there a disproportionate share going to the "upper management" or "ceo" sector? Maybe, and the solution to that is to tax them higher, so the benefit of that excess profit goes to all of society, and not to the lower-level workers who are doing nothing to produce the extra wealth. Those higher taxes on that sector can go to paying for needed infrastructure, or to reducing the public debt, or to reducing taxes on the broad middle- and lower-class.

If instead that "surplus" is wasted by forcing them to pay it to certain high-profile workers for symbolic effect only -- to workers who did not create the "surplus" wealth -- then it attracts more job-seekers to those jobs where there is already an oversupply of the common workers, the non-specialists and non-engineers and non-scientists. We have enough ordinary factory workers already. We don't need to attract more factory workers, more steel workers, more autoworkers -- we have too many of them already -- some need to be terminated, we need to get rid of them because fewer of them are needed now.

Many of those excess workers are paid wages from the middle- to higher-income levels, and this overpayment of wages to them forces the companies to reduce those jobs and thus reduce production from where it could be at lower wage levels. The abundance of some workers can be a benefit to society provided that companies are allowed to reduce the wages to them, to take advantage of the oversupply, and thus increase production and keep costs down = more wealth produced at lower prices = higher standard of living overall.

So it's not that the workers are underpaid, even if it's true that the "upper management" and "ceo" share is too much. It's society, or the whole economy, all the people who are getting cheated of its fair share, if the "surplus" profit is going to the wrong place. Simply forcing them to spend it on higher labor cost unnecessarily, wasting it on workers who are already a dime-a-dozen, deprives the whole nation of its share of the prosperity being created as a result of the improved technology, due largely to progress in science and education and other social gains not produced by any one company.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Scapegoating all employers is no solution to anything.

Those climbing the corporate ladder are probably not in the best position to judge whether or not CEO's or board are overpaid. Given their ambition and self interest, they are biased.

So are the workers and the unions. So they also are not able to judge who is overpaid or underpaid.

The fact is that pay for CEO's was not always so high, the gap between management and worker pay was not so great....the gap has grown into a gulf.

That is the problem.

Perhaps, but the solution to it is not to increase worker pay, which is already high enough (for 90% of them) to attract all the workers needed. Probably too high, so that there is an OVERSUPPLY of those workers.

Rather, the solution is to TAX the windfall profit or surplus profit, so all society gets the benefit of the increased wealth production creating the increased profits.

And imposing higher labor cost (higher wages) onto ALL employers big and small makes no sense. Not all employers are raking in huge profits. Punishing all employers causes reduced production and higher prices to consumers. Some small operators are struggling to survive and are put out of business by increased labor cost imposed onto them from the outside. They are not the cause of whatever is wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

And what about volunteer work ? ? ?

I.e., work done at ZERO wage? How are you not excluding all VOLUNTEER WORK with the above moralistic judgmentalism? No one yet has answered this, though it has been asked several times now.

If you're against cheap labor and exploitation, then why are you not condemning all VOLUNTEER work? the cheapest lowest-paid labor there can be? The reason no one is answering this is simply that cheap labor is good for the economy, despite all the moralistic foaming-at-the-mouth preaching of Vivian@Suchnerve and other "fair trade" hypocrites.

Wondering how much lumpen charged his kids to change their poopy diapers.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Need some help, FREE-TRADE- and EMPLOYER-BASHERS? Try his video.

Here is a slick video about "Fair Trade Coffee" from German producer DW.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lARrHV-40

This is worth watching to see what the "fair trade" topic is really about.

Since no one in this thread seems able to give any arguments for "fair trade" which make any sense, maybe a look at this video would offer something of substance, as opposed to what we're getting so far. It's interesting how "fair trade" beats "free trade" hands down (much worse than Biden beats Trump) in the poll, and yet all the arguments make no sense.

The video in one place says the "fair trade" coffee doesn't cost any more, so there's no benefit to consumers from the "free trade" production using cheap labor. But if that's true, then it's no different than "free trade" and there's no reason to promote it as being morally superior, as "fair trade" crusaders do.

I don't believe the claim that it's no more expensive, after they add on all the extra cost. If there's less profit to company directors (or no profit at all), then of course that lower cost can make the product cheaper and more competitive, and in that case all they have to do is just sell it and compete, and they should win in the "free trade" competition. Free trade includes the element of benefiting from any lower cost, including lower share/salaries to the CEO and directors and investors etc.

I found a bargain instant coffee product at Food-4-Less (also at Ralph's but more expensive). I don't give a damn where it's produced (it doesn't say on the label), who picks the beans, how much they're paid, whether they hire minorities (or women), whether they beat their dog, etc. etc. Why should I care where this product came from or what they pay the coffee-bean pickers?


The environmental cost of shipping the product has to be paid in the form of energy taxes, e.g., on the fuel. These taxes probably are too low, because it has to be enough to totally pay for all the damage. This is where the change is needed, not consumers trying to keep track of every company's performance and trying to boycott those which burn too much fuel.


And volunteer workers again rearing their ugly head: If you listen to this video, you'll notice that VOLUNTEER WORKERS are used in some of the production. Doesn't this violate the requirement to pay the workers at least a living wage? How can ZERO pay be a living wage? So once again we see the hypocrisy and phoniness of the "fair trade" propagandists.

Still no one has explained why volunteer work is not prohibited if we follow the "fair trade" doctrine.

 

[laughing dog]

Here is a slick video about "Fair Trade Coffee" from German producer DW.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9lARrHV-40

This is worth watching to see what the "fair trade" topic is really about.

Since no one in this thread seems able to give any arguments for "fair trade" which make any sense, maybe a look at this video would offer something of substance, as opposed to what we're getting so far. It's interesting how "fair trade" beats "free trade" hands down (much worse than Biden beats Trump) in the poll, and yet all the arguments make no sense.

The video in one place says the "fair trade" coffee doesn't cost any more, so there's no benefit to consumers from the "free trade" production using cheap labor. But if that's true, then it's no different than "free trade" and there's no reason to promote it as being morally superior, as "fair trade" crusaders do.

I don't believe the claim that it's no more expensive, after they add on all the extra cost. If there's less profit to company directors (or no profit at all), then of course that lower cost can make the product cheaper and more competitive, and in that case all they have to do is just sell it and compete, and they should win in the "free trade" competition. Free trade includes the element of benefiting from any lower cost, including lower share/salaries to the CEO and directors and investors etc.

I found a bargain instant coffee product at Food-4-Less (also at Ralph's but more expensive). I don't give a damn where it's produced (it doesn't say on the label), who picks the beans, how much they're paid, whether they hire minorities (or women), whether they beat their dog, etc. etc. Why should I care where this product came from or what they pay the coffee-bean pickers?


The environmental cost of shipping the product has to be paid in the form of energy taxes, e.g., on the fuel. These taxes probably are too low, because it has to be enough to totally pay for all the damage. This is where the change is needed, not consumers trying to keep track of every company's performance and trying to boycott those which burn too much fuel.


And volunteer workers again rearing their ugly head: If you listen to this video, you'll notice that VOLUNTEER WORKERS are used in some of the production. Doesn't this violate the requirement to pay the workers at least a living wage? How can ZERO pay be a living wage? So once again we see the hypocrisy and phoniness of the "fair trade" propagandists.

Still no one has explained why volunteer work is not prohibited if we follow the "fair trade" doctrine.

You keep repeating the "no one has explained" falsehood. There are a plethora of explanations in this thread. From your word salads, it appears the explanations are either unread or not understood - neither of which negates the existence of the explanations.

As I have explained a number of times, all free trade is based on trust and the agreement on the nature of the item(s) traded. The essence of free trade is that onsumers get to choose the goods and services they want that meet their needs and producers choose how to respond to consume demands. If consumers demand goods and services that are produced "fairly", then producers have the choice to meet those demands or not. So fair trade is free trade.

There is an obvious difference between volunteer work and paid work: paid work is done to maintain a household in some manner while unpaid volunteer work is not. That crucial difference is so obvious, one wonders why anyone bothered to bring it up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All the work is being done with simple hand tools. The only substantial tool in there is the conveyor belts. Contrast that with my former employer's factory--we had an overhead conveyor like in your video, but most tasks in the shop was performed on a machine that cost at least as much as a year's wages for it's operator(s), the most expensive machines cost more like 10x the wage of it's operator(s). I have not been on the factory floor of my current employer but my impression is the machinery cost per worker is substantially higher.

Machinery cost does not paint the full picture of production, profits, market value of work performed, etc...

I wasn't trying to paint the full cost, I was trying to show a cost that was vastly greater than it was in the old days.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have supported what I say, history, stats, examples of exploitation of vulnerable workers, which you ignore, only to repeat your baseless assertions.

You have no case to argue. Workers are open to exploitation. There are countless examples of this. The rich get richer while the average wage has languished for decades. Workers are, as shown, not getting their market share of the wealth they help to create.

You're still not addressing anything.

I have, but you don't want to face the facts, that workers have been losing their market share of production even while the rich have been increasing their wealth in leaps and bounds...that this situation is not sustainable in the long term, probably not even in the medium term: the next fifty years or so.

You continue to assert this but your "proof" neglects the money going to tooling.