Pope condemns sweatshops and unemployment in May Day message

[Jacob]

I'm sorta with Yi on this, but it's not like this is the first time a figure from some church made unreasonable and/or contradictory exhortations on society.

I heard that Jesus fellow was like that.

[Admiral Yi]

A religious leader telling people what their obligations are? I'm sure that must come as a big shock to you.

I'm not all that shocked when religious leaders don't follow their own preaching either.

[Jacob]

I'm not all that shocked when religious leaders don't follow their own preaching either.

Clearly you are wise to the ways of the world.

[Tamas]

So the Pope hates poor people?

If producers do not care for costs and efficiency, they cannot compete by lowering prices, so poor pipple couldn't afford all the cheap shit they are buying at Wallmart/Tesco, Amazon etc.

[Josquius]

Is the Vatican not a wealthy institution?

Are there not many owners of shares and bonds who are not wealthy?

Are there not even more non-wealthy people who rely on pension funds? 

Is Marty, a wealthy person by most standards and definitely a wealthy person by Polish standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Are you, a wealthy person by 3rd world standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Being wealthy isn't really enough of a reason for giving people a job, that would be a bit silly, you have to actually be an employer in a position to do something too.

[Tamas]

Is the Vatican not a wealthy institution?

Are there not many owners of shares and bonds who are not wealthy?

Are there not even more non-wealthy people who rely on pension funds? 

Is Marty, a wealthy person by most standards and definitely a wealthy person by Polish standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Are you, a wealthy person by 3rd world standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Being wealthy isn't really enough of a reason for giving people a job, that would be a bit silly, you have to actually be an employer in a position to do something too.

uhm, no. You seem to be finding it a good idea to ask employers to employ people they do not actually need. Then why can't rich Vatican employ people just for the heck of it? What is the difference?

[Josquius]

Is the Vatican not a wealthy institution?

Are there not many owners of shares and bonds who are not wealthy?

Are there not even more non-wealthy people who rely on pension funds? 

Is Marty, a wealthy person by most standards and definitely a wealthy person by Polish standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Are you, a wealthy person by 3rd world standards, morally obligated to give some people a job?

Being wealthy isn't really enough of a reason for giving people a job, that would be a bit silly, you have to actually be an employer in a position to do something too.

uhm, no. You seem to be finding it a good idea to ask employers to employ people they do not actually need. Then why can't rich Vatican employ people just for the heck of it? What is the difference?

Nobody is suggesting employing people 'just for the heck of it'. Again, that's fucking stupid. Who said that?
You're using the vatican as a counter example with the whole why don't they practice what they teach line but this doesn't work. The vatican has loads of unprofitable  parts of its business which it still employs people in. It doesn't close and merge churches half as much as a pure business would given how profitable many of them are.

[Tamas]

He's not saying to go out and hire everyone, that would be stupid. He's just saying if you can afford to hire someone then do so, don't be too concerned about filing down businesses to the bare minimum of workers they need to make the most efficient profit possible

that means hiring people they don't actually need.

[Josquius]

He's not saying to go out and hire everyone, that would be stupid. He's just saying if you can afford to hire someone then do so, don't be too concerned about filing down businesses to the bare minimum of workers they need to make the most efficient profit possible

that means hiring people they don't actually need.

Not absolutely needed != definitely useless.

[Tamas]

He's not saying to go out and hire everyone, that would be stupid. He's just saying if you can afford to hire someone then do so, don't be too concerned about filing down businesses to the bare minimum of workers they need to make the most efficient profit possible

that means hiring people they don't actually need.

Not absolutely needed != definitely useless.

if it makes sense from a profit point of view to hire somebody, he/she will be hired. If it doesn't make sense from a profit POV, they are not needed.

[Josquius]

He's not saying to go out and hire everyone, that would be stupid. He's just saying if you can afford to hire someone then do so, don't be too concerned about filing down businesses to the bare minimum of workers they need to make the most efficient profit possible

that means hiring people they don't actually need.

Not absolutely needed != definitely useless.

if it makes sense from a profit point of view to hire somebody, he/she will be hired. If it doesn't make sense from a profit POV, they are not needed.

Which is the wrong approach to take.
If you can hire an extra person without affecting profits, other people's earnings, etc... in any way then it's without a doubt wrong not to do so.

[Tamas]

He's not saying to go out and hire everyone, that would be stupid. He's just saying if you can afford to hire someone then do so, don't be too concerned about filing down businesses to the bare minimum of workers they need to make the most efficient profit possible

that means hiring people they don't actually need.

Not absolutely needed != definitely useless.

if it makes sense from a profit point of view to hire somebody, he/she will be hired. If it doesn't make sense from a profit POV, they are not needed.

Which is the wrong approach to take.
If you can hire an extra person without affecting profits, other people's earnings, etc... in any way then it's without a doubt wrong not to do so.

but can you? it must be a very rare occasion. If a en employer is able to give work, workspace, salary to an additional worker while it makes him earn a bigger profit, he will, without the Pope telling him. But it's not as easy as "lo and behold I am granting you a job". Is it production? Then you need tools, a factory line to accomodate the extra worker. A demand on the market to buy what the extra guys produce. A workplace which has enough room and infrastructure to have the new guys working.
And etc.

I'd rather let the employers themselves decide if the above makes sense in their situation, instead of being smart and moral from the outside.

[Josquius]

[

but can you? it must be a very rare occasion. If a en employer is able to give work, workspace, salary to an additional worker while it makes him earn a bigger profit, he will, without the Pope telling him. But it's not as easy as "lo and behold I am granting you a job". Is it production? Then you need tools, a factory line to accomodate the extra worker. A demand on the market to buy what the extra guys produce. A workplace which has enough room and infrastructure to have the new guys working.
And etc.

That's the reply I expected.
I was of course giving a perfect theoretical, something that would never be so clear cut in the real world, yet nonetheless you seem to be suggesting that even in this perfect case of it doing no harm and no good to your company to help someone out you wouldn't do it.

I'd rather let the employers themselves decide if the above makes sense in their situation, instead of being smart and moral from the outside.

That's the entire point of what the pope said. That employers when making this choice should look beyond pure profit and consider doing some good at the same time. That's not at all to say they should ignore profit altogether.

[Tamas]

That's the reply I expected.
I was of course giving a perfect theoretical, something that would never be so clear cut in the real world, yet nonetheless you seem to be suggesting that even in this perfect case of it doing no harm and no good to your company to help someone out you wouldn't do it.

Where did I write that? 
I am saying that if it makes sense from a profit point of view to expand, expansion will happen. If not, it won't, and this is how it should be.
I guess you treat profit as secondary, which is crazy and highly unfair, as everybody works for profit, be it employer or employee.

[Josquius]

That's the reply I expected.
I was of course giving a perfect theoretical, something that would never be so clear cut in the real world, yet nonetheless you seem to be suggesting that even in this perfect case of it doing no harm and no good to your company to help someone out you wouldn't do it.

Where did I write that? 
I am saying that if it makes sense from a profit point of view to expand, expansion will happen. If not, it won't, and this is how it should be.
I guess you treat profit as secondary, which is crazy and highly unfair, as everybody works for profit, be it employer or employee.

No. I never suggested profit should be secondary (didnt' I say that somewhere? maybe I deleted it). It should however not be the ONLY consideration. At least with a smidgin of your decision making you should consider the human factor too.

I assume from your that you agree that you would employ someone if they add nothing but they take nothing? (speaking in terms of the end result of course. They would cost maintainance and they would produce something. It would come out to a grand profit after tax and everything as a result of having this person of 0)