QuotePope Francis Rails Against Sweat Shops and Unemployment in May Day Message
A society that fails to pay a fair wage or one that seeks only personal profit is unjust and goes against God, Pope Francis said in a May Day message Wednesday.
Addressing pilgrims during his weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square, the pontiff said work is fundamental for dignity — it gives man "a special dignity, a personal dignity," and men and women who work "are dignified."
But he noted many who want to work cannot, and many more who do work are exploited.
"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 said.
"This is a burden on our conscience, because when society is organized in such a way that not everyone has the opportunity to work, to be anointed with the dignity of work, then there is something wrong with that society," he said.
"It is not right. It goes against God himself, who wanted our dignity, starting from here."
Francis referred directly to the collapse last week of a garment factory in Bangladesh, which killed more than 400 employees. He expressed anger at their salary of $50 a month. "This was the payment of these people who have died," the Pope said. "This is called slave labor."
"How many brothers and sisters throughout the world are in this situation because of these, economic, social, political attitudes?" he asked, lamenting how people have become subordinate to the profit they can offer to those in power.
"What point have we come to? To the point that we are not aware of this dignity of the person," he said, recalling that May 1 is the feast of St. Joseph the Worker in the Catholic Church.
Pope Francis concluded by calling on people to listen to the voice of God, as when he spoke to Cain in the Old Testament and said: "Cain, where is your brother?"
Today, he said, God's voice says: "Where is your brother who has no work? Where is your brother who is subjected to slave labor?"
As a cardinal in Argentina, Pope Francis said the poor most need jobs to give them dignity and must not be looked upon with disgust.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/pope-francis-may-day/2013/05/01/id/502267#ixzz2S4aa0DmT
I'm really digging this Pope. Few weeks ago he similarly railed against wealth and career-climbing of the men of the church. I wonder if he is going to see this Christmas.
Well, I guess it's nice for him to be yelling at capitalists instead of gays. :)
QuoteToday, he said, God's voice says: "Where is your brother who has no work? Where is your brother who is subjected to slave labor?"
Pick a lane.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 03:06:28 PM
QuoteToday, he said, God's voice says: "Where is your brother who has no work? Where is your brother who is subjected to slave labor?"
Pick a lane.
But, but he's the pope.
Quote from: Caliga on May 01, 2013, 03:06:21 PM
Well, I guess it's nice for him to be yelling at capitalists instead of gays. :)
I like him. I know I disagree with a lot of his views, but it's nice to see a change of focus.
I agree Mart (I wasn't being sarcastic).
So the Vatican hires everyone who's unemployed, and pays them a decent wage. End of problem.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 03:21:34 PM
So the Vatican hires everyone who's unemployed, and pays them a decent wage. End of problem.
He is just going back to the Church's roots which was to minister to the poor. Historically that meant much more than simply preaching to them...
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
He is just going back to the Church's roots which was to minister to the poor. Historically that meant much more than simply preaching to them...
Sure, in this case it means telling others what their obligations are. So if the Pope talks the talk he should walk the walk.
He should go back to the Church's roots and recreate the Papal Army.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
He is just going back to the Church's roots which was to minister to the poor. Historically that meant much more than simply preaching to them...
Sure, in this case it means telling others what their obligations are. So if the Pope talks the talk he should walk the walk.
An idiotic response from a notorious idiot. There is not even any point arguing with you any more. You should be filed in the same category as Raz.
What's the deal with Mart?
The Church employs a lot of people and does not make employment decisions based on a profit motive. So I don't see the supposed hypocrisy here.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2013, 03:35:27 PM
The Church employs a lot of people and does not make employment decisions based on a profit motive. So I don't see the supposed hypocrisy here.
The hypocrisy lies in calling the existence of unemployment a moral failure. If it's a moral failure then someone, somewhere has an obligation to hire unemployed people. If the pope thinks that obligation is not universal he should tune up his message.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
He is just going back to the Church's roots which was to minister to the poor. Historically that meant much more than simply preaching to them...
Sure, in this case it means telling others what their obligations are. So if the Pope talks the talk he should walk the walk.
Agreed. It will be interesting to see what he does in terms of distributing some of the wealth of the Church to the poor.
OTOH he also claims that God is real, so no sane person listens to him anyway.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2013, 03:35:27 PM
The Church employs a lot of people and does not make employment decisions based on a profit motive. So I don't see the supposed hypocrisy here.
Maybe not on a profit motive but perhaps a wealth accumulation model...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 03:40:14 PM
The hypocrisy lies in calling the existence of unemployment a moral failure.
That isn't what he said.
he makes two claims:
First - on the level of an entire society, he is claiming that it wrong for the society to be organized in such a way as to deny the opportunity to work.
The implication of that claim is that there is a moral obligation to advocate for changing social rules and structures to provide greater opportunities to employment. Which is exactly what he is doing.
Second, on the level of a firm or organization, he is claiming that it is wrong to make hiring and firing decisions only based on the profit motive. The implication is not that a given firm or organization must spend all of its resources employing people. The implication is that the firm or organization must include broader considerations in making employment and comp decisions other than just narrow financial profit. Again, there is no contradiction between this and how the Church operates.
I'm liking the new pope, he seems, as other have pointed out, to doing the church's work.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 01, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
First - on the level of an entire society, he is claiming that it wrong for the society to be organized in such a way as to deny the opportunity to work.
The implication of that claim is that there is a moral obligation to advocate for changing social rules and structures to provide greater opportunities to employment. Which is exactly what he is doing.
This is just adding another level of abstraction. After you're done changing social rules and structures you still end up with the obligation to hire anyone who is unemployed. The obligation could be on the part of government, business, charity, individuals, whoever, but you can't evade the obligation.
QuoteSecond, on the level of a firm or organization, he is claiming that it is wrong to make hiring and firing decisions only based on the profit motive. The implication is not that a given firm or organization must spend all of its resources employing people. The implication is that the firm or organization must include broader considerations in making employment and comp decisions other than just narrow financial profit. Again, there is no contradiction between this and how the Church operates.
This is the edit you wish you could have made to his speech, not what he actually said. He said "Not giving a job goes against God's will."
Quote from: mongers on May 01, 2013, 03:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 04:01:58 PM
This is just adding another level of abstraction. After you're done changing social rules and structures you still end up with the obligation to hire anyone who is unemployed. The obligation could be on the part of government, business, charity, individuals, whoever, but you can't evade the obligation.
It matters quite a bit what level the obligation applies to. The Pope isn't saying that each individual person or firm is obliged to solve the entire unemployment problem on their own. That would make no sense. He is defining the obligation as one of supplying "opportunity" for work and he is saying it is a social obligation that applies at the level of an entire society.
QuoteThis is the edit you wish you could have made to his speech, not what he actually said. He said "Not giving a job goes against God's will."
Check the bolded quotation again. You omitted a bunch of words. The words you omitted are the same ones you claim to be my edits!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 04:01:58 PM
This is the edit you wish you could have made to his speech, not what he actually said. He said "Not giving a job goes against God's will."
No, he said "not giving a job because you are only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit — that goes against God" which is much closer to what Minky said than your interpretation. Nowhere does he say you should hire every possible person you can.
Kay.
Yi sold his copy of Rerum Novarum at Georgetown to a freshman looking for EZ Widers.
Now that Marti likes the pope I'm uneasy and suspect there's something wrong with el papa.
Quote from: frunk on May 01, 2013, 04:17:57 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 04:01:58 PM
This is the edit you wish you could have made to his speech, not what he actually said. He said "Not giving a job goes against God's will."
No, he said "not giving a job because you are only looking at balance sheets, only looking at how to make a profit — that goes against God" which is much closer to what Minky said than your interpretation. Nowhere does he say you should hire every possible person you can.
Indeed and I'm not sure what Yi is misconstruing to say something else and then criticising that reduction. :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2013, 04:08:01 PMI'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.
There's no difference, there's no change of focus whatsoever - remember Benedict classified unbridled financial capitalism with international crime and terrorism as a threat to world peace. Similarly many forget JPII's warnings to Poland that having got rid of communism they didn't fall into Western consumerism.
But the story of Benedict was that he was the hard line, high camp doctrinal enforcer with a Liberace liturgical taste. So the liberal Catholics and the media and the conservative Catholics fixated on his teachings about sexual morality and the Latin mass at the cost of his teaching on basic theology (the Jesus of Nazareth books) and the world economy.
I'd say he also has extra focus because the media didn't like the last Pope, like this one and are setting up false contrasts - I think liberal and conservative Catholics tend to be doing the same (over liturgy especially) - which will probably be disappointed. This really is Rerum Novarum, but that was a seam of Catholic teaching Benedict emphasised, especially in Caritas in Veritate.
Here's Benedict in Caritas in Veritate:
'In comparison with the casualties of industrial society in the past, unemployment today provokes new forms of economic marginalization, and the current crisis can only make this situation worse. Being out of work or dependent on public or private assistance for a prolonged period undermines the freedom and creativity of the person and his family and social relationships, causing great psychological and spiritual suffering. I would like to remind everyone, especially governments engaged in boosting the world's economic and social assets, that
the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity: "Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life"'
...
The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner, and that
we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.'
Those are the Vatican's emphases.
Edit: It does make me wonder what he'll say and do when he visits Rio though. JPII famously gave his ring to the people of the slum he visited.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 01, 2013, 07:50:27 PM
Edit: It does make me wonder what he'll say and do when he visits Rio though.
Probably heckle them about their soccer team.
I totally agree with what he's saying and don't see a problem with it.
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. To be able to hire people who don't necessarily increase your profits too much (but of course nor do they detract from them) is something to aspire to, an example of very moral business.
He is in fact saying that any unemployment at all is an injustice.
"This is a burden on our conscience, because when society is organized in such a way that not everyone has the opportunity to work, to be anointed with the dignity of work, then there is something wrong with that society," he said.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 08:35:49 PM
He is in fact saying that any unemployment at all is an injustice.
"This is a burden on our conscience, because when society is organized in such a way that not everyone has the opportunity to work, to be anointed with the dignity of work, then there is something wrong with that society," he said.
No, everyone being given an opportunity to succeed is just a restatement of the American Dream n'est pas?
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
boyscouts :contract:
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
What, do you and Marty work 12-on, 12-off shifts or something?
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. And I still like this Pope, as far as Catholics go.
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
boyscouts :contract:
Yeah OK, if you think that's dignity. Do boy scout leaders even wear dresses?
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
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. And I still like this Pope, as far as Catholics go.
How is it unreasonable and/or contradictory?
Not quite. I think 'opportunity to work' is relevant.
But of course that's what he's saying. Catholic social teaching is explicit that an ordered society would have full employment, ours is a disordered society and in such a way that is wrong. Unemployment undermines a just society. More importantly, from a Catholic perspective, man is 'called to work'. It's a reminder that we are made in the image of God - through work we create and work is more than simply sustaining life (which is bestial). So unemployment is a sign of a society gone wrong but also assaults the dignity and spirit of man.
So, from a Catholic view, if a society were ordered then the opportunity to work would be available to all. Some individuals, as in all cases, may reject their own purpose - which in part was what JPII called subjective work - but that wouldn't be an indication of society being wrong.
JPII again:
'In view of this situation we must first of all recall a principle that has always been taught by the Church: the principle of the priority of labour over capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production: in this process labour is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause.
...
The role of the agents included under the title of indirect employer is to act against unemployment, which in all cases is an evil, and which, when it reaches a certain level, can become a real social disaster.'
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
What, do you and Marty work 12-on, 12-off shifts or something?
That's a lie.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
boyscouts :contract:
Yeah OK, if you think that's dignity. Do boy scout leaders even wear dresses?
does in private count?
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2013, 08:47:29 PMbut it's not like this is the first time a figure from some church made unreasonable and/or contradictory exhortations on society.
Surely that's the job of the Church? Certainly of a man who has the title 'Vicar of Christ' :lol:
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:50:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:44:31 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
What, do you and Marty work 12-on, 12-off shifts or something?
That's a lie.
Yep, you work overlapping shifts.
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
boyscouts :contract:
Yeah OK, if you think that's dignity. Do boy scout leaders even wear dresses?
does in private count?
No. It does not.
Good effort, Shiv. But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:52:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:51:32 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:48:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 01, 2013, 08:43:11 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 01, 2013, 08:40:49 PM
The Catholic Church certainly does its part, no one else would hire thousands of active pedophiles and give them the dignity of work.
boyscouts :contract:
Yeah OK, if you think that's dignity. Do boy scout leaders even wear dresses?
does in private count?
No. It does not.
Niether does wearing one in a pasture.
I met a bird the other day. Ever hear the expression sore like an eagle?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:53:30 PM
Good effort, Shiv. But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.
This is the part of the discussion when Captain Occupy starts throwing random slogans together.
Nonsense. His Holiness has spoken for me.
Now if I can only get him to accept my LinkedIn invite.
There's a MD demonstration choking up downtown today. Funny, I don't remember ever seeing that when I was growing up.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2013, 09:32:34 PM
There's a MD demonstration choking up downtown today. Funny, I don't remember ever seeing that when I was growing up.
The physicians are rioting?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 08:35:49 PM
He is in fact saying that any unemployment at all is an injustice.
"This is a burden on our conscience, because when society is organized in such a way that not everyone has the opportunity to work, to be anointed with the dignity of work, then there is something wrong with that society," he said.
I don't see whats wrong with that.
Quote from: dps on May 01, 2013, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 01, 2013, 09:32:34 PM
There's a MD demonstration choking up downtown today. Funny, I don't remember ever seeing that when I was growing up.
The physicians are rioting?
Don't be silly. It's those damned Muscular Dystrophy people in their hoverchairs again.
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 09:51:53 PM
I don't see whats wrong with that.
Is it a burden on your conscience that you haven't given an unemployed person the dignity of a job? Do you think it's a burden on the conscience of the Pope that the Vatican hasn't given more unemployed people the dignity of a job? Of course not. You and he both know it's not your obligation. It's the obligation of the bloodsucker, the capitalists, the Jewish financiers.
In other words, one of the benefits of deferring consumption and investing money in a profit-making firm, of expending entrepeneurial energy and time to start a business from scratch, is the moral obligation to hire more people than you already have. But if you're not providing a livelihood to anyone, you're off the hook.
It's either class warfare or it's hypocrisy, take your pick.
I just took it to mean that there is a responsibility to not hold people back and put artificial barriers in their way.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:53:30 PM
Good effort, Shiv. But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.
Is Yi even Christian? I thought he worshiped Moloch.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 10:05:34 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 09:51:53 PM
I don't see whats wrong with that.
Is it a burden on your conscience that you haven't given an unemployed person the dignity of a job? Do you think it's a burden on the conscience of the Pope that the Vatican hasn't given more unemployed people the dignity of a job? Of course not. You and he both know it's not your obligation. It's the obligation of the bloodsucker, the capitalists, the Jewish financiers.
In other words, one of the benefits of deferring consumption and investing money in a profit-making firm, of expending entrepeneurial energy and time to start a business from scratch, is the moral obligation to hire more people than you already have. But if you're not providing a livelihood to anyone, you're off the hook.
It's either class warfare or it's hypocrisy, take your pick.
Of course it is.
Its a burden on your conscience that you live so well and have so much money when you could easily give some of it to those poorer than you. That's not to say the gods expect you give all your money away, that would be stupid, but you should certainly make what effort you can to help those who are needy.
The pope is saying the same kind of thing. It sucks that there are so many unemployed in the world, obviously this problem can't be totally fixed overnight, you're not expected to go out and hire every unemployed person you can even if it bankrupts you, that's pretty obvious and goes without saying. But people in a position to do something should try to do what they can.
I think its a pretty good message, give a man a fish/teach a man to fish, sort of stuff.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 01, 2013, 10:22:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:53:30 PM
Good effort, Shiv. But you're not going to sway these protestant Free Marketeer Republicans.
Is Yi even Christian? I thought he worshiped Moloch.
Is that the name of the bronze bull idol out on Wall Street? Then yeah.
Quote from: Tyr on May 01, 2013, 10:29:41 PM
Of course it is.
Its a burden on your conscience that you live so well and have so much money when you could easily give some of it to those poorer than you. That's not to say the gods expect you give all your money away, that would be stupid, but you should certainly make what effort you can to help those who are needy.
The pope is saying the same kind of thing. It sucks that there are so many unemployed in the world, obviously this problem can't be totally fixed overnight, you're not expected to go out and hire every unemployed person you can even if it bankrupts you, that's pretty obvious and goes without saying. But people in a position to do something should try to do what they can.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 03:25:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 01, 2013, 03:22:42 PM
He is just going back to the Church's roots which was to minister to the poor. Historically that meant much more than simply preaching to them...
Sure, in this case it means telling others what their obligations are. So if the Pope talks the talk he should walk the walk.
A religious leader telling people what their obligations are? I'm sure that must come as a big shock to you.
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 01:14:34 AM
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.
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.
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 10:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 02:01:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 10:45:34 PM
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?
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 02:01:26 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 01, 2013, 10:45:34 PM
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.
Quote from: TyrHe'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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: TyrHe'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.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:12:00 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: TyrHe'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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 03:13:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:12:00 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: TyrHe'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.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:18:12 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 03:13:15 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:12:00 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:49:05 AM
Quote from: TyrHe'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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 03:26:26 AM
[
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:29:48 AM
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? :wacko:
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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 03:38:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 03:29:48 AM
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? :wacko:
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 :wacko: 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)
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.
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.
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. :contract:
:unsure:
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
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 04:58:00 AM
:unsure:
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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 05:01:34 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 04:58:00 AM
:unsure:
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?
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.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 05:09:08 AM
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.
FFS Tyr!
Is Gates hiring people to Microsoft with his charity money? No? Than in what way is this relevant?
Quote from: Barrister on May 01, 2013, 04:08:01 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 01, 2013, 03:58:26 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:53:30 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 06:41:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 01, 2013, 08:53:30 PM
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. :lol:
you know you will rejoin the Church eventually, Marty, so succumb to your polishness and do it already.
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2013, 12:10:23 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 01, 2013, 08:47:29 PM
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! :o
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.
Mart: neither Tamas nor Yi are unemployed. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2013, 06:59:37 AM
Mart: neither Tamas nor Yi are unemployed. :huh:
yes, but we do not deal with the elite while we help them wish-wash their who knows what through the legal labyrinth
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2013, 06:59:37 AM
Mart: neither Tamas nor Yi are unemployed. :huh:
They both were for a while.
Tamas, the problem is that the decision to fire/hire someone (as most business decisions) is not binary - it's a matter of taking into account various factors that, when it comes to personal decision, in addition to the bottom line include a number of other factors, such as team morale, quality of life, work-life balance and so on, not to mention moral concerns. And that's just the question of good management, without taking into account more "philosophical" issues, such as good organization of the society and so on.
You and Yi are postulating a sort of soul-less bottom-line oriented decision making process which not only would be unethical - it also does not work in the long run, as you can't approach people the way one would approach strip mining.
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2013, 06:59:37 AM
Mart: neither Tamas nor Yi are unemployed. :huh:
They both were for a while.
if you count school as not being unemployed, than I haven't been unemployed for a single day in my entire life.
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:24:42 AM
Tamas, the problem is that the decision to fire/hire someone (as most business decision) is not binary - it's a matter of taking into account various factors that, when it comes to personal decision, in addition to the bottom line include a number of other factors, such as team morale, quality of life, work-life balance and so on, not to mention moral concerns. And that's just the question of good management, without taking into account more "philosophical" issues, such as good organization of the society and so on.
You and Yi are postulating a sort of soul-less bottom-line oriented decision making process which not only would be unethical - it also does not work in the long run, as you can't approach people the way one would approach strip mining.
I know we have been going at it with Tyr for numerous posts, but if you look back, you will find a post of mine where I basically posted your first paragraph (just not as well worded). I did that to point out that Tyr is wrong to consider this issue (the issue of hiring a guy you don't actually need, just to give him a helping hand) a purely monetary affair
Also, I of course readily admit, that when it comes to firing existing personnel, there should be other considerations than short term financial ones. I would not force those considerations legally, but any decent man would take the fate of his people into account.
But when it comes to hiring, which is in some way an investment, and with that a degree of risk for the business and everyone concerned by it, no charitable intentions should come into account.
I would fire all of you. :)
Quote from: Tamas on May 02, 2013, 07:27:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:21:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 02, 2013, 06:59:37 AM
Mart: neither Tamas nor Yi are unemployed. :huh:
They both were for a while.
if you count school as not being unemployed, than I haven't been unemployed for a single day in my entire life.
Ok. Fireblade has been going around for a while now claiming you have been fired. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:38:23 AM
Ok. Fireblade has been going around for a while now claiming you have been fired. :lol:
How many times have you been burned by taking what those guys say at face value?
Quote from: Neil on May 02, 2013, 07:52:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:38:23 AM
Ok. Fireblade has been going around for a while now claiming you have been fired. :lol:
How many times have you been burned by taking what those guys say at face value?
No kidding. Who was it he said died in the hurricane back on EUOT?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 01:14:34 AM
Quote from: Jacob on May 02, 2013, 12:03:20 AM
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.
You mean, the guy who took a vow of poverty?
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 02:01:26 AM
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.
Why is that? What's preventing the Vatican from using its money to start up a company and hire a bunch of people at a loss of $10 a person?
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 04:29:43 AM
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.
How many companies can you name that are owned by one guy?
Quote from: Martinus on May 02, 2013, 07:24:42 AM
You and Yi are postulating a sort of soul-less bottom-line oriented decision making process which not only would be unethical - it also does not work in the long run, as you can't approach people the way one would approach strip mining.
I am not. I'm saying that if a sacrifice should be made for the common good it should be made by all of us and not just by "those guys over there."
The Pope has taken a vow that forbids him from having sex with adults and you talk about sacrifice?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 02:01:26 AM
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.
Why is that? What's preventing the Vatican from using its money to start up a company and hire a bunch of people at a loss of $10 a person?
They do. They are called Catholic Schools, Churches and Charities.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 02, 2013, 11:43:52 AM
They do. They are called Catholic Schools, Churches and Charities.
So nothing stopping them from hiring some more.
Is that your way of saying the Pope does indeed "Walk the Walk".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
I'm saying that if a sacrifice should be made for the common good it should be made by all of us and not just by "those guys over there."
So you are saying what the Pope is saying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
I am not. I'm saying that if a sacrifice should be made for the common good it should be made by all of us and not just by "those guys over there."
:yes: Welfare > charity
It's not charity for one dude to decide another dude should give stuff to a third dude.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 12:16:03 PM
So you are saying what the Pope is saying.
I am not. The Pope has done nothing to demonstrate he believes this proscription applies to the Catholic Church.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 12:25:44 PM
It's not charity for one dude to decide another dude should give stuff to a third dude.
If other dude decides to give stuff, it's charity. If he doesn't, nothing gets given. Il Papa is not his master.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 02, 2013, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 02, 2013, 12:25:44 PM
It's not charity for one dude to decide another dude should give stuff to a third dude.
If other dude decides to give stuff, it's charity. If he doesn't, nothing gets given. Il Papa is not his master.
he meant welfare
I didn't say it was charity. I said it was better. :contract:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 11:33:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 02, 2013, 04:29:43 AM
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.
How many companies can you name that are owned by one guy?
I know of a lot of companies that have one shareholder. I know of even more where one person is the majority shareholder.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 12:27:38 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 12:16:03 PM
So you are saying what the Pope is saying.
I am not. The Pope has done nothing to demonstrate he believes this proscription applies to the Catholic Church.
The Church employs hundreds of thousands of people and its hiring and firing decisions are completely unrelated to any profit motive, so clearly it is acting in conformity with the Pope's dictum.
Your claim depends entirely on a stubborn misreading of the what the Pope actually said.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 01:16:56 PM
The Church employs hundreds of thousands of people and its hiring and firing decisions are completely unrelated to any profit motive, so clearly it is acting in conformity with the Pope's dictum.
Your claim depends entirely on a stubborn misreading of the what the Pope actually said.
I was responding to Squeeze, who said it's an obligation of the wealthy.
Your interpretation of course means that the Pope's comments are an attack on profit, which is return on capital, which is deferred consumption. Which gets us back to misguided class warfare and an unintended attack on people saving for retirement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 02, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
I know of a lot of companies that have one shareholder. I know of even more where one person is the majority shareholder.
So do I. But to hear Squeeze talk, company is synonymous with rich guy.
You really are stubborn heh Yi? Since you require it I'll give an exemple of what the Pope meant.
I've been where I work for 7 years - during that time I've seen the pool of administrative assistant reduced by 45% - not the workload mind you. This means the remaining bodies are expected to carry the same workload as before. They call it rationalization - I call it extortion. The so called managers are fully aware there's slipage and corners cut. They don't care about the human costs for those they fire, for those that remains and become overworked and burn out They don't give a shit so long as they target margins for the fiscal year are met. And you know why of course - because that ensures they *personally* will get their objective bonuses. Did I mention the organization still rakes in hundreds of million in profit every semester - *not* revenues Yi - profits. Bankrupcy isn't on the horizon here - all there is is unadulterated greed.
That is what the Pope is talking about.
G.
What's the dividend yield and how many shares of this fabulously profitable company have you bought?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 02, 2013, 01:31:29 PM
Your interpretation of course means that the Pope's comments are an attack on profit, which is return on capital, which is deferred consumption. Which gets us back to misguided class warfare and an unintended attack on people saving for retirement.
There is a lot in here I don't agree with. But rather than risk derail the thread I'll focus on this: the Pope is definitely attacking the notion that profit should be the sole determinant in making decisions about hiring and firing workers . You may disagree with that proposition as a matter of good political economy. But the Pope's position does seem to follow logically from the message of the Gospels. We shouldn't be surprised that that the Pope goes with Jesus over Ricardo and Say.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 02, 2013, 03:08:28 PM
There is a lot in here I don't agree with. But rather than risk derail the thread I'll focus on this: the Pope is definitely attacking the notion that profit should be the sole determinant in making decisions about hiring and firing workers . You may disagree with that proposition as a matter of good political economy. But the Pope's position does seem to follow logically from the message of the Gospels. We shouldn't be surprised that that the Pope goes with Jesus over Ricardo and Say.
And I could take exception to that part of the message, but it is the more reasonable part of the message. The part I'm taking serious exception to is that any unemployment at all is a moral failing, and a moral failing *only* of owners of capital.
And don't even get me started on that Bangedeshi $50 wage "exploitation" nonsense.