Pope condemns sweatshops and unemployment in May Day message

[Tamas]

If somebody came out as 0 change in profit at the end? It would depend. If I could clearly ascertain that zero, than sure why not.
But there are plenty of nonmaterial issues to add/detract from that zero. Will the new guy be able to fit in the community? Will he not cause deterioration in the efficiency of the other workers? Can he be expected to stay long enough to compensate for the investment his extra place required? Will my company grow too large to react to changing market environments (ie. am I endangering the job of my current employees just to be nice with somebody)?

If I could safely assume that even with those the net is zero, sure. If not, I'd choose the responsible way and do not employ the freebie.

[Josquius]

Well thats...not a ringing endorsement of doing good.
What if  your company was earning a million a year and you only lost $10 on account of having this extra person?
Considering you're a millionaire would you really balk at spending $10 to make a good guy (assume you wouldn't hire a dick) 's life significantly better? Maybe he has a family too. And this is charity you can actually see the effects of in your home country, not like throwing $10 a month at some far away good cause, if others followed the same thinking then the unemployment rate would drop and the country and your life would be better.

[Tamas]

I would put the $10 to charity. That what employing somebody whose work you don't need is anyway, so it would be better to have the professionals be charitable from my excess money.

[Josquius]

But the guy wouldn't be earning $10, he'd be earning $20,000, he would just be adding $19,990 profit (simplified version where wages are the only consideration).
Much better for someone to make a wage than to live  off charity

[Tamas]

But the guy wouldn't be earning $10, he'd be earning $20,000, he would just be adding $19,990 profit (simplified version where wages are the only consideration).
Much better for someone to make a wage than to live  off charity

ah. No, I wouldn't employ him. No losses I can eliminate.

You see, you are looking at this situation from the view of the desperately unemployed who could be mercy-hired. He is one guy in this example. But the employer would probably have other employees. The owner and the employees also families who depend on the stability and prosperity of the company. Putting all those lives in jeopardy by mistaking a for-profit company for a shelter is extremely irresponsible for society.

[Josquius]

But the guy wouldn't be earning $10, he'd be earning $20,000, he would just be adding $19,990 profit (simplified version where wages are the only consideration).
Much better for someone to make a wage than to live  off charity

ah. No, I wouldn't employ him. No losses I can eliminate.

You see, you are looking at this situation from the view of the desperately unemployed who could be mercy-hired. He is one guy in this example. But the employer would probably have other employees. The owner and the employees also families who depend on the stability and prosperity of the company. Putting all those lives in jeopardy by mistaking a for-profit company for a shelter is extremely irresponsible for society.

Hardly.
If we're talking about a business which is merely getting by then stretching to employing people who results in a loss, no matter how small, isn't a good idea, it is risking everyone elses job for the sake of helping one guy.
If the business is doing very well though and the amount concerned is negliable then shouldn't it try and give something back to society?

From another theoretical would you fire a guy if you somehow deduced that his net profitability was -$10 despite the company doing perfectly well?

[Tamas]

The very basic idea behind hiring somebody is that his/her work will yield a net profit. If you hire or keep people who are not able to achieve that for you, you WILL run into the ground when (and it is never an IF!) trouble hits.

[Josquius]

The very basic idea behind hiring somebody is that his/her work will yield a net profit. If you hire or keep people who are not able to achieve that for you, you WILL run into the ground when (and it is never an IF!) trouble hits.

So when businesses engage in charity on the side they're dooming themselves to inevitable failure? Bill Gates should just stick to making money rather than investing in his foundation?

It's really very sad that some people think this way. One of the big problems with the world really. It really makes the Pope's message all the more apt.

[Tamas]

FFS Tyr!

Is Gates hiring people to Microsoft with his charity money? No? Than in what way is this relevant?

[Martinus]

I'm liking the new pope, he seems, as other have pointed out, to doing the church's work.

I'm not sure he's saying anything different than JPII or Benny would have said.  He just has some extra attention right now because he is such a new appointment.

The RCC was never a believer in unbridaled capitalism.

It's a matter of focus - I said as much in one of my first posts in this thread.

[Martinus]

Good effort, Shiv.  But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.

Unfortunately, this disease also affects lay Catholics at least here in Poland. Many support death penalty, Thatcherite capitalism and oppose theory of evolution - they are going to grow to hate this Jesuit Pope I hope. 

[Tamas]

Good effort, Shiv.  But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.

Unfortunately, this disease also affects lay Catholics at least here in Poland. Many support death penalty, Thatcherite capitalism and oppose theory of evolution - they are going to grow to hate this Jesuit Pope I hope. 

you know you will rejoin the Church eventually, Marty, so succumb to your polishness and do it already.

[Martinus]

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?

Not really. There are many situations, even in the Western world, where what the Pope is talking about applies but what you and Yi are talking about does not.

For example, venture fund managers. I know personally (my clients) guys who boast about their favorite m.o. being to go into a relatively well-to-do company, fire half of the staff so that the profitability is even higher, then sell it to another investor - with their benefit from this exercise being an ability to buy their third yacht (while hundreds of people end unemployed). This kind of efficiency uber alles attitude that is more prevailing now than ever in history of capitalism.

What I find funny is that people like I - who deal with managers, directors and big investments on a daily basis - seem to understand this, while two unemployed dredges like you and Yi seem to happily drink the "capitalism is the best" kool aid. There is nothing better than an ignorant, blissful slave.

[Phillip V]

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.

Jesus died to save you!

[Tamas]

Mart, I am sorry but that doesn't apply. We discussed a situation where the owner actually wants to operate the business, and whether he should employ needless people out of charity.

That has exactly zero to do with reckless raiding (as a sidenote, if you know more raiders than honest company owners, perhaps the problem lies in your line of work, not the world itself)
Raiding is indeed an unfortunate side effect of not having planned economies.

Speaking of which, the reason why it is extremely tiring to argue over this subject is that you and Tyr depict it as a sort of theoretical debate, while the planned, lots-of-enforcement model has indeed been tried extensively behind the iron curtain. Hell, they tried to reform it numerous times. It failed. It doesn't work.