Indeed, it is about moral responsibility, transparancy and informed choice when it comes to consumers and retailers. It is a question of whether we are prepared to seek out infornation for ourselves. Maybe we would be less inclined to if we'd already decided not to be concerned about Bangladeshi workers. That way we'd not find anything to burst our comfy western middle class bubble.

let me follow your line of reasoning here...I should only buy the most expensive "stuff" so I am assured the poor are not being taken advantage of and Jesus would want it that way? That may sound really stupid but is exactly what is being proposed.

No, it is not what is 'proposed'. I asked if you think companies or consumers have some responsibility when it comes to the sources of goods they buy and sell, and specifically in this case for a situation where people are working in substandard, dangerous conditions. And I gave my view which is that we/they do at least have some moral reaponsibility to be wary.

Which is not the same thing as saying you should only buy expensive stuff. Your inference is your affair and (as many times before) I wish you'd cease this tendency to put words into the mouths of others so you can paint them as ridiculous.

Still I do wonder at the dissonance of someone who says they are a Christian but is also keen to tell us who they don't care about.

Seems that Primark do acknowledge some responsibility though: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ap ... y-collapse

"Primark notes the fact that its supplier shared the building with those of other retailers," said the retailer, whose supplier, Simple Approach, had occupied the second floor of the eight-storey Rana Plaza building that collapsed.

"We are fully aware of our responsibility. We urge these other retailers to come forward and offer assistance."

Not exactlyon point ... but interesting nonetheless...

guess who said this today?

A headline that really struck me on the day of the tragedy in Bangladesh was 'Living on 38 euros a month'. That is what the people who died were being paid. This is called slave labour,"
"Today in the world this slavery is being committed against something beautiful that God has given us -- the capacity to create, to work, to have dignity. How many brothers and sisters find themselves in this situation!" he said.
"Not paying fairly, not giving a job because you are only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit. That goes against God!" he was quoted as saying.
"There are many people who want to work but cannot. When a society is organised in a way that not everyone is given the chance to work, that society is not just," he said.

I most certainly did say what i did in a somewhat joking way, so sensitive are we?
but how off was I?
Danivon

The lower the price, the more you should question what leads to it being so.

and

but does it ever worry you why some things are so cheap?

and

here is such a thing as due diligence, and we should be wary of the combination of the race to the bottom and widespread corruption.

...I should buy expensive "stuff" to assure I am not paying for slave labor or worse, how am I misreading what you are saying here?

and the other part
Danivon

I guess that is between you and your maker, but does it ever worry you why some things are so cheap?

Rickyp

Jesus disagrees with you Tom

...clearly you (the group who suggest we should be responsible for our purchases) think God wants us to buy expensive "stuff", no?

The Pope said it.

Thus it is a MORAL issue between you and your Maker (Strange it comes from people who do not believe in a "Maker", but I digress). If a company wishes to pay more than a certain wage, it is a morality point either way for them. Does morality need to be mandated by the government? Are you sure that is the direction you want the government to go?

Can we at least agree that government should not mandate morality either way?

tom

...clearly you (the group who suggest we should be responsible for our purchases) think God wants us to buy expensive "stuff", no

First there's a difference between "expensive" and "a fair price".
Second. I don't know God all that well, but the guy I was quoting was The Pope... and he's purported by many to be quite an authority on what God wants..
I'll bet he sounds a little radical to you though?
Thing is, what the Gospels report about Jesus, he was pretty radical sounding too. Well, to "conservatives". So, maybe the Pope has the right take on what God wants... And if thats the case you should rethink your attitude towards making an effort to support companies that have fair trade and fair wage policies... Elst you show up in Heaven and find out that "professing not to care" isn't going to be good enough to get you in....

bbauska

Does morality need to be mandated by the government? Are you sure that is the direction you want the government to go?

The end of slavery was a moral argument won in England in 1803. and later in other places...
The extension of civil rights protections to citizens for an increasing number of criteria (sex, sexuality, color, ethnicity, freedom of expression, freedom of movement etc) was won by moral argument.
All laws produced by a government of the people, for the people and by the people reflect the moral base of the society.
Included amongst that is the right to make many moral decisions in private, when they do not affect other individuals...
But deciding to pay an exploitative wage is a moral decision that affects many people. Not just the employer and reluctant employee but the employees family, the businesses customers etc.
And governments regularly set those moral limits in laws and regulations. . Haven't you noticed?
.

GMTom wrote:I most certainly did say what i did in a somewhat joking way, so sensitive are we?
but how off was I?

The fact that you are constantly doing this shit is why I am 'sensitive' to it. I ask you to stop, and you just carry on.

Danivon

The lower the price, the more you should question what leads to it being so.

and

but does it ever worry you why some things are so cheap?

and

here is such a thing as due diligence, and we should be wary of the combination of the race to the bottom and widespread corruption.

...I should buy expensive "stuff" to assure I am not paying for slave labor or worse, how am I misreading what you are saying here?

You are misreading it. It is not a call simply to buy 'expensive' stuff, it's a call (in the first two) for consumers to consider, question, be wary of, cheap goods, and for companies (in the third) to exercise due diligence.

However, as Ricky says, there is somewhere between 'dirt cheap' and 'expensive' that we might call a 'fair price'.

and the other part
Danivon

I guess that is between you and your maker, but does it ever worry you why some things are so cheap?

The bit that's between you and your maker/conscience, is the part about not caring (and being quite vocal about that) about people far away.

...clearly you (the group who suggest we should be responsible for our purchases) think God wants us to buy expensive "stuff", no?

Well, God apparently thinks you are responsible for all of your actions, and about their impacts on other people. That doesn't mean you have to buy 'expensive' stuff, but you should perhaps 'care' or have concern for all people, even - or especially - 'the least of these'.

Or don't - it's your religion, your conscience and your decision, but if you think that the God of Jesus Christ was cool with rich people exploiting poor people for profit, and others letting it ride because they get cheap stuff, well, let's just say I'm glad we don't worship the same God.

Or maybe what you mean by 'clearly' is not the English definition. You seem to think it means "according to the logical leap I [GMTom] made in my head in order to create a false dichotomy, straw man argument so I can tell the other guy their position is stupid".

Still you got one thing right - of course you are responsible for your purchases, if you made them.

bbauska wrote:The Pope said it.

Thus it is a MORAL issue between you and your Maker (Strange it comes from people who do not believe in a "Maker", but I digress).

It is what we call an 'expression'. It also means for many of us that it's a matter between you and your conscience.

However, just because the Pope said it doesn't make it solely a moral issue. He may also be wrong.

If a company wishes to pay more than a certain wage, it is a morality point either way for them. Does morality need to be mandated by the government? Are you sure that is the direction you want the government to go?

Can we at least agree that government should not mandate morality either way?

Stealing is wrong. Should government mandate morality on stealing? What about killing people? Sometimes maybe it's morally justified, so should government get involved in deciding when?

Not just the Pope said it was a moral issue. You did. RickyP did. Freeman did. You claim morality when it suits you. You claim discrimination and personal rights when it does not. I see a MAJOR double standard in your thinking. Minimum wage v Walmart is a "moral" issue, yet the evidence is that the average is $1.20/hour above minimum wage. How much does it cost to be "moral"? How much can you buy from Trader Joes to be absolved of the immorality?

Sounds too much like indulgences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

my wife likes dark chocolate ...says a little every day is good for you. We found a really cheap (and tasty) chocolate from Trader Joes, cheaper than anywhere else. Based on this thread, I am confused. Trader Joes is supposed to be good about this stuff, but prices that are seemingly too low exploit workers ...what am I to do?

try the dark chocolate almond bits and it will all make sense.

GMTom wrote:my wife likes dark chocolate ...says a little every day is good for you. We found a really cheap (and tasty) chocolate from Trader Joes, cheaper than anywhere else. Based on this thread, I am confused. Trader Joes is supposed to be good about this stuff, but prices that are seemingly too low exploit workers ...what am I to do?

Sigh...

Try using your brain.

bbauska wrote:Not just the Pope said it was a moral issue. You did. RickyP did. Freeman did. You claim morality when it suits you. You claim discrimination and personal rights when it does not. I see a MAJOR double standard in your thinking. Minimum wage v Walmart is a "moral" issue, yet the evidence is that the average is $1.20/hour above minimum wage. How much does it cost to be "moral"? How much can you buy from Trader Joes to be absolved of the immorality?

Sounds too much like indulgences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Conflation appears to be the conservative meme of the day....

For consumers, it is pretty much a moral issue. For retailers and companies that source goods, I think it goes further. Especially when they are commissioning branded goods.

The Pope was talking about the companies. My OP was about the companies. You guys are just defencively reacting on the consumer bit.

And I am not saying simply 'spend more on stuff' so much as consider the phrases: 'caveat emptor' and 'you get what you pay for'.

(it is nothing like Indulgences, unless the RCC owns Trader Joes and makes a formal link)

Anyway, nice to see your line of argument, but dd you spot where I linked to a company admitting it had some responsibility?