I've been thinking for a while that I need to put my personal beliefs into action on a more broad scale. I have a certain moral and ethical outlook on life. I try to do my best to interact with people in a way that follows my morals. And yet this doesn't always carry over to how I interact with the world around me(particularly from a consumer standpoint). The act of being a consumer is so impersonal and removed that I think we sort of forget or disconnect it from our normal moral and ethical outlook.
I've been thinking about this for a while, but it was prompted more a few weeks ago when I was on vacation with some friends, and two good friends of mine brought these large reusable grocery shopping bags. They use these whenever they go shopping so they don't have to waste paper or plastic. My housemate and I also started recycling recently(there is no recycling pick up in our area, and you need to separate the stuff out yourself and drive it to a recycling center if you want to recycle). But just thinking about it, there are so many things that I could, and would like to do to live my life more ethically. For instance, things like only buying products from companies with ethical business practices, who treat and compensate their employees fairly, who don't excessively harm the environment. Buying foods which are produced ethically(i.e-not harming animals, etc...).
I'm not sure how far I'd like to take all this, in terms of only organic food and clothing and all that. But I'd like to find out more information about this. Are there websites that are resources for this type of thing? Organizations?
And also, is this idea practical? How easy is it to change your habits and follow this path? And how much more expensive is going to be???
Are there any particular things that other Hatrackers do to live their lives in a more ethical manner?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
To find out more about the ethical cost of eating different kinds of foods, I recommend Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I appreciate that you started this thread, Strider. Because this is something I've been thinking about a lot lately as well. I don't know much about it. I was told by someone somewhere to start by reading a book called No Logo -- but of course I haven't yet. I don't know how good that recommendation is or isn't, by the way. I haven't looked into it yet.
I'll be watching this thread as well.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Sure it's practical. And as for how far you should go with your efforts, I suppose that just depends on what your ultimate goals are.
For instance, Ericka and I make an effort whenever possible to purchase products that aren't tested on animals. Two popular "safe" brands we like are Method and Seventh Generation. They make a wide variety of household products, and their selection is growing pretty rapidly. They're also not too expensive, and you can find them pretty much everywhere. Our local Target has a pretty extensive selection of Method products.
You might find this useful.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I added both those books to my wishlist, though Omnivore's Dilemma seems a bit more interesting to me from reading the reviews(even though it focuses only on food, and not consumerism in general, though that's probably the thing we spend money on most regularly so it's probably more appropriate anyway).
rollainm, we might have to talk more about this at the convention! But as for now, I don't know what my ultimate goals or, or what level of dedication I'm willing to give. Which is why for now I'd just like to become better informed and go from there. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
After reading this thread I found this article on slavery and chocolate, saying "Because of the way the chocolate industry buys its cocoa it is not possible to ensure that slave or other forms of illegal exploitation have not been used in its production."
Fair Trade chocolate is listed as the only known exception.
As for me, I'm not too interested in changing my consumer habits for a general "ethical" label per se, and I don't care much if there's plastic from my house at the landfill, but I don't want there to be children in slavery. All I can think of for now is to not buy chocolate.
Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
In general, you can expect that animals raised on pastures will be more healthy and better treated than animals in a feedlot. The Eat Wild website has a directory of pasture-based farms in each state. You could visit the ones near you to further confirm that the animals are healthy and treated well.
--Mel
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Strider,
What do you value most in the behavior of corporations? I'm thinking that it's highly unlikely you'll find any that fit and do everything that could be considered consumer- and animal- and enviromentally- and employee-friendly, so you'll have to make choices as to what is acceptable and what isn't.
For instance, is paying minimum wage enough? Enough for outside of US, but not enough for within? What about being union-friendly (Starbucks is on trial for firing employees who tried to organize a union)? Is the union thing okay as long as health insurance is available? Available to all employees, or is it enough that it is full-time employees?
For food companies, what if the animals are free-range but the employees are paid less than minimum wage? How does that compare to a company where the animals are in cages but the employees are given decent wages and benefits? Are you going to become vegetarian? If not, what practices are acceptable and what are not when it comes to the slaughter of the animals?
For environmentally things, what is more important - symbolic actions or effective actions? How will you determine what are effective actions?
What do you hope to have happen as a result of this? Is it for your personal peace of mind? Measurable change? Setting an example? Depending on what you want to have happen, your actions and the research and dedication necessary will be different.
quote:And also, is this idea practical? How easy is it to change your habits and follow this path? And how much more expensive is going to be???
1) Depends on where you and whether there is a critical mass of people interested int he same thing. If yes, then there will be outlets and businesses to cater to them. If not, much harder. For instance, Target, Best Buy, Starbucks, and most of the food in the local grocery store and most cheap clothing are already out by the standards in your first post.
2) Very difficult. Unless you live on a farm and make your own clothing, you will have to interact with the rest of society, and this isn't something that is embraced or standard practice in the rest of society. I'd guess the difficulty would be at the same level as following all the kosher rules for being an Orthodox Jew. How difficult that is also probably depends on the critical mass of people nearby who are interested in the same thing.
3) No idea. I'd guess...honestly, I'd guess a lot. There's definitely a connection between low production costs and the low price of goods.
However, I don't know for sure, and it depends on your list of values and the order in which you put them.
[ August 23, 2007, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
Another book that I really like is called "Diet for a Small Planet." It talks about ways that we can choose foods that have less of an impact on the world around us.
Strider, I wish you luck in your efforts to really consider what effect you are having on everyone. I think it's very commendable. Just know, there's no black and white, especially in most western nations. You may not be able to find all that you want.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
wow kat, that's a lot to think about it, and I don't have answers for all those questions yet. But they're great questions to help me along my way.
quote:Are you going to become vegetarian?
I've thought about this. I don't think I'll be doing this just yet(and if I do, I don't think I would ever go fully vegan), but I would definitely like to cut down on the meat in my diet and stop relying so heavily on it. When I was younger I'd eat meat maybe once or twice a week, it's now practically every day. But I think the vegetarian thing is a topic for a whole other thread!
Thanks everyone else for suggestions and links too. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Shopping for a Better World rates companies and products on just about every social and enviornmental issue you can think of. I have an earlier edition, but if they kept the same format I think you'll find it very useful. Everything is in tables by product, so if you are going to buy shampoo you turn to the shampoo page and check the type you're thinking of buying against whichever issues are most important to you -- animal testing, employee benefits, etc. (I need to get a new one, my last still has whether or not they invest in South Africa as a category and arpartied has been over for a while now. ) Or you can go through and highlight brands that fit whatever your top priorities are.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
How much more expensive it will be depends on the type of stuff you're buying now. I tend to buy nice quality clothing at department stores, for example, but only when it's on sale. It's a little more expensive than buying clothes at Target, but the clothes tend to fit me better and hence look nicer. I recently found a store in town that sells only clothing made from sustainable fabrics and recycled material. (Birch). The clothing there is mostly less than the full price at department stores, but more than the sale prices. And they have sales too, of course. I could probably switch to buying only environmentally friendly clothing for about the same cost as I pay now.
The problem, of course, is that the clothing doesn't match my style as well. So I have to make the decision if I want to migrate my personal style to match my environmental beliefs. I suspect that I will start buying basics there (jeans, pants, shells) and continue buying accent pieces elsewhere.
Like kat said, availability depends on demand. But demand is rising, almost everywhere in the US. It's only getting easier to tread more gently on the planet, if you want to.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wonder how much of the things we'd like to do are actually possible on the large scale. In other words, it might be great to be able to eat beef from cows who have ranged free their entire lives, but is there enough range land that if everyone decided to eat free range beef, ranchers would actually be able to produce enough food? Is crop yield/acre of organic food enough that everyone could eat organic?
Are factory farms and non-organic methods necessary to support the world's population? If organic methods can't feed everyone, then organic and free-range seem like luxury goods to me. Great if you can get 'em, but impossible for everyone to have.
edit for clarification
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Obviously, there are a lot of different opinions on the matter. But it's by no means clear-cut enough to say it's impossible or a luxury.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We currently produce far more than enough calories to feed the world; that we don't suggests there is something rather more complicated going on, that might or might not be worsened by an attempt to move to all-organic production.
I definitely agree that it isn't clear-cut.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: To find out more about the ethical cost of eating different kinds of foods, I recommend Omnivore's Dilemma by Micheal Pollan.
I concur. It's a very compelling look at where, exactly, our food comes from and what the true "cost" of modern agriculture is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In other words, it might be great to be able to eat beef from cows who have ranged free their entire lives, but is there enough range land that if everyone decided to eat free range beef, ranchers would actually be able to produce enough food? Is crop yield/acre of organic food enough that everyone could eat organic?
Highly managed pastoral farming actually produces more food per acre than normal farming techniques.
The reason why it's not more widely used is that it's much more labor-intensive and therefore more expensive.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Highly managed pastoral farming actually produces more food per acre than normal farming techniques.
The reason why it's not more widely used is that it's much more labor-intensive and therefore more expensive.
I didn't know that. Very interesting.
I would consider adding the labor and monetary cost as well though, when determining if it's a viable alternative.
Having sufficient land is meaningless if the farmers cannot charge enough money to pay the labor cost, or the higher price of food prevents people from eating.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think that's why you have to pick what is most important when it comes to eating conscientiously - if all the farm workers were paid a living wage with benefits, then the half-gallon of organic orange juice at the local grocery store would cost $20.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would consider adding the labor and monetary cost as well though, when determining if it's a viable alternative.
Most people spend a relatively small portion of their income on food costs and that portion has been decreasing for decades. Most of us could afford to pay much more for our food.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What would the other repurcussions in society be if the cost of food doubled or quadrupled?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's been decreasing for over a century.
If we spent the same percentage of our income on food as they did 100 years ago, we could pay a living wage with benefits to everybody that works in the industry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that even the living wage rhetoric that leads to that statement is out of place. I suspect most (even almost all) people involved in farming the food we eat do earn 'a living wage' -- one which provides them a standard of living they find reasonable, often with enough money to send some home or save.
I do not think the rhetoric that talks about 'a living wage' being more like 'a wage capable of replicating the standard of living commonplace in the US' is sensible, and I think it is frequently intellectually dishonest.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I suspect most (even almost all) people involved in farming the food we eat do earn 'a living wage' -- one which provides them a standard of living they find reasonable, often with enough money to send some home or save.
Including all the illegal migrant workers? Who earn (maybe) minimum wage?
Is it a standard that they find reasonable or is it what they can afford?
I deeply dislike saying that people who live on the edge of poverty are clearly satisfied with their situation so we don't need to worry about them getting paid any more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It we spent the same percentage of our income on food as they did 100 years ago, we would all have less of many things we want to have, including in many cases healthcare, schooling, streets, houses, and computers.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I do not think the rhetoric that talks about 'a living wage' being more like 'a wage capable of replicating the standard of living commonplace in the US' is sensible, and I think it is frequently intellectually dishonest.
That is pretty much exactly what I meant by the term. Perhaps it was linguistic laziness on my part, but it wasn't dishonesty.
If you have a better term for that, I'd love to hear it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:If we spent the same percentage of our income on food as they did 100 years ago, we could pay a living wage with benefits to everybody that works in the industry.
Changing the percentage of our income we spend on food back to what it was 100 years would have a huge effect on the economy - considering that not the same percentage of the workforce work on farms and instead work in other industries that are supported by the dollars freed up by spending less on food, then huge swaths of people would be out of work as the money available for their industries shrank. Does that mean we also need to return the percentage of the workforce that are farm workers back to the levels they were 100 years ago?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You make excellent points, Kat. I'm not saying that we necessarily *should* spend the same percentage. I'm just giving data supporting the idea that we can afford to spend a *lot* more money on food than we do now.
And I don't know how much we'd need to spend on food to give each worker in the industry a decent salary with benefits.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that people manage to live, often comfortably, with wages other than that capable of granting a standard of living similar to that in the US, a living wage is not a very good term for that quantity.
If you merely intend to refer to a wage that results in standards of living similar to the US, then I suggest a phrase such as "an income equivalent to US incomes."
If we spent the same percentage of our income on food as they did 100 years ago, we would have to give up large amounts of other things we want, including in many cases roads, healthcare, houses, computers, and similar.
And there is not some deviousness in why wages are so disparate (though there are some interesting questions). One thing has been clear with research: wages are strongly correlated with created value (value being, in this case, whatever people are willing to pay for). This has been shown in and between industries, nations, regions, and companies, to varying degrees. This correlation can be shown to be causative through the action of prices and markets. People in the US and other western countries generally earn more because they generally produce more, a lot more.
It has also been shown that as value production increases, wages increase. This is happening quite rapidly in China and India, and has happened in recent history in places like South Korea.
Raising wages significantly for people involved in inefficient agricultural endeavors will have predictable effects: a disincentive to move into more productive areas of work, and a disincentive to make agricultural production more efficient.
Helping increase those people's ability to produce, however, will increase their wages without the associated negative effects. It is less prone to subversion, too (for instance, I anticipate that most developing countries we suddenly started paying such dividends to would have a rash of protection rackets and other ways of extracting money from those receiving disproportionate inflows).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If we spent the same percentage of our income on food as they did 100 years ago, we would have to give up large amounts of other things we want,
Like Kat said, it's a matter of priority.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: -- if all the farm workers were paid a living wage with benefits, then the half-gallon of organic orange juice at the local grocery store would cost $20.
Do you have any way to back that number up, kat? Because I think it's further from the truth than can be accounted for by exaggerating for effect.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Nope. Read it somewhere, but don't have the reference on hand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There is good reason to believe that even if we tried to pay the people who worked on farms that much, they would not end up with that much. In that sense it is not a matter of priority (unless its a question of the priority of providing more money to people who exploit others vs not).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My recollection of the examples given in the Omnivore's Dilemma was that the pastural farm produced products were more in the range of 30-60% more expensive than industrial versions. They were not several times more expensive. And this does not account for the hidden expenses of industrial farming, such as corn subsidies, less healthy food, and environmental damage. There's also, if it's a concern for you, the factor of animal health and wellfare.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But there was a reference you read, somewhere?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu: I am uncomfortable with abandoning even the goal of paying farm workers anything more than the minimum possible because someone might take it from them.
ElJay: I think so, although it's been ages.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many farm workers are paid more than 'the minimum' -- evidenced by the fact that even the workers we consider low-paid regularly remit substantial portions of their salaries to families back home, and flock in large numbers to offers to work for the wages offered -- and I didn't suggest abandoning the goal of paying farm workers more, I suggested a better way of going about it.
Also, it isn't a particularly theoretical consideration. For instance, the vast majority of our monetary aid to certain states is co-opted to support authoritarian regimes (and often semi-voluntarily, as a quid pro quo to allow non-monetary aid to be brought in), and used to buy weapons and support drug production. If we provided large sums of money in the form of farming assistance
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Okay. I still think it's likely wrong, because there are multiple brands of organic orange juice available at my grocery store for less than $4 per half-gallon, and I don't believe that giving the farm workers who produce them a living wage and benefits would quintuple the price even if they are currently using slave labor.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, I agree that it is complicated and just throwing money at foreign governments won't work. However, that's all part of the "How to eat conscientiously" - if whether or not people are paid decently is a factor, then the picture gets more complicated.
I do not take money being sent proof as proof of a decent wage. Why are the practices that people decry against Wal-Mart acceptable when it comes to farm workers?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I should suggest another good way to go about it.
Many third-world farm producers are not competitive for one primary reason: subsidies by the US and other western nations for domestically produced product (including tariffs against imports).
The single easiest way to make low-income producers of food better off would be to abolish our farm subsidy programs. This would also make US consumers better off, as their total expenditures (including the costs of the subsidies) on farm products would fall (on some common items, such as anything using sugar, substantially). If any US farm workers are substantially affected, I am all for aiding them in retraining and surviving the interim period before they find another job in our current high-employment situation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Which particular practices are you referring to? Some things that have been protested against at Wal-marts are reprehensible, others are not so much in my opinion. As far as I can think of, all the practices I find reprehensible at Wal-mart I find reprehensible with farm workers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The farm subsidies also play a roll in the dominance of domestic industrial farming. Feeding cows corn (which they are not designed to digest) is cheaper than feeding them grass, in part because of corn subsidies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This thread prompts me to wonder if there were "no one will be able to afford cotton clothes" when slavery was abolished. And I wonder how much the price of cotton changed after the war. And how much it would have changed if slavery had been abolished without a war.
My inclination is to look at the difference in wealth between the people at the "top" and the people at the "bottom" of the scale when it comes to production.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My inclination is to look at the difference in wealth between the people at the "top" and the people at the "bottom" of the scale when it comes to production.
So you look at it, and then what conclusions to you draw based on it?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I am definitely not saying it shouldn't be done. I think it's complicated, and all the repercussions should be acknowledged so they can be accounted for. I don't think not acknowledging them helps anything - it leads to a lot of empty rhetoric but no practical change. I also think that the more thorough the examination, the more credibility it has. That credibility is necessary to implement any change, because you're going to have to convince people outside of the faithful and converted.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My inclination is to look at the difference in wealth between the people at the "top" and the people at the "bottom" of the scale when it comes to production.
So you look at it, and then what conclusions to you draw based on it?
Well, I think that in most large businesses, there is a disparity between what the "bosses" make and what the people on the lower rungs of the ladder earn. I think that this disparity is more than can be accounted for by who puts in more time and effort and "value". I think that having the people at the top of this scale determine wages contributes to this disparity.
I don't know exactly how this impacts food costs, but my guess is that you could pay the people at the bottom of the ladder little more if the people at the top were paid somewhat less without drastically changing the price of food.
Or at least it is a factor that should be considered. What percentage of that price for a gallon of orange juice is going to people other than the people who actualy produce the orange juice? What part to people who advertise the orange juice? And so forth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, there might quite possibly be some adjustments (edit: in how agriculture is done absent subsidies).
JH: then we're on good ground. That increasing productivity increases wealth is one of the most examined topics in the social sciences. That farm subsidies in the western nations significantly reduce the wealth of people in the third world, as well as somewhat reducing the wealth of the people in the very countries they are applied in, has also been very closely examined. There is also a lot more than 'empty rhetoric' involved; for instance, the question of farm subsidies is a major political logjam internally to nations, and even moreso externally. It sunk the Doha round of WTO talks.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I'm just wondering why there's no expressed interest in stopping the slavery in the chocolate industry.
In case it is that the word "slavery" gets tossed around so much now that it means nothing more than "being underpaid", please note that this is real, chattel slavery (children being sold for about $30), and that children are beaten, malnourished, and have their feet sliced with razors if they attempt escape (link). I hope we will all take whatever action we can to stop it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
As an example of what Kate's talking about, when Ben & Jerry's was operated by Ben & Jerry, they had a policy that the highest paid employee couldn't make more than seven times what the lowest paid employee made. The founders have sold the company now, so I don't know if that's still the case, but it was for a long time and they managed to build a successful and profitable company that way.
Now, they obviously made a lot more money through selling their stock when they sold the company. But that's thier return on investment for starting it in the first place. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Qaz, for me, because I'm already aware of the issue and only buy fair trade chocolate. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I had known then what I know now about conflict diamonds, I would not have bought my sweetheart a natural diamond for the ring I gave her.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yeah. Any further diamonds I aquire will be estate jewelry or dug myself.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
kmb: I posted my last post before you did, but watching the videos is still important.
I doubt I will change your opinion, but first lets check off a few things. First, value (in the sense of what someone is capable of earning for their work) is not measured in time, though it is important to many people. It is often easy to see some differences in the value of production, such as when one person produces several times the quantity of another person over the same time period (this frequently applies when comparing farm workers in the US and farm workers in the developing world).
Neither is it measured in effort, for similar reasons.
Value (in the sense I am talking about, and the sense that drives the world economy) is about how much people are willing to give for the product (which is not necessarily tangible) in free exchange.
I should say that I'm perfectly okay with people paying extra themselves for food made by someone they feel makes too little, either in price or by sending the money directly to the producers. That's one way of expressing what is valuable to you. My experience is that many of those who talk about ensuring someone is paid a living wage are interested in forcing people who would not otherwise pay so much to pay more for products, one way or another.
If your question is, are 'bosses' paid too much, I suggest you try operating a company where the 'bosses' are paid substantially less than what they are paid in other companies. It would also be interesting to try an experiment where the 'bosses' are paid substantially more than what they are paid in other companies. I suspect, and based on research that has been done on those situations, that neither would do very well. In this sense it is trivially true that bosses are generally paid as much as their value -- if you don't pay them about what other people are paying them, your firm does badly (less value), and if you pay them a lot more than what other people are paying them, your firm still does badly (any increase in value outweighed by increase in salary) -- strongly suggesting they are at a reasonable equilibrium.
But of course, you will claim that it is not individual firms that need changing, but the whole system. And it can be true; there are serious problems in some countries where institutional situations prevent fair allocation. I am all in favor of rectifying those situations. I usually note the strong correlation of rule of law, reduced corruption, and strong property rights with increases in individual welfare.
However, as you will see in the talks, we need to keep some things in mind. The people in third world countries are not, for the most part, stagnating, and where they are many of the causes are obvious (and have nothing to do with how much people are paid). The life expectancies and standards of living, by every measure, have skyrocketed in the decades since world war two. Poor nations are (again, for the most part) becoming rapidly better off, and faster than the developed nations are (in every measure except money, which is a rather shallow measure of how well off someone is, and even sometimes using money as a measure).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Yeah. Any further diamonds I aquire will be estate jewelry or dug myself.
They make gem-quality synthetic diamonds these days. If I were getting engaged today, I'd seriously look at that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yeah, but how much more cool would it be to dig your own diamond?
(Coolness factor may or may not be impacted by how large a diamond you find.)
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Didn't know you could get Fair Trade chocolate here. I will look into it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Qaz: sounds like a good cause to rally around.
ElJay: compensation is not always in the form of a salary. Also, Ben and Jerry's has done even better after the removal of that salary cap.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I suggest you try operating a company where the 'bosses' are paid substantially less than what they are paid in other companies.
Wasn't Ben and Jerry's already mentioned as a company where this was the case?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Yeah, but how much more cool would it be to dig your own diamond?
Finding your own diamond is tremendously cool.
I also happen to think that man-made diamonds are pretty dang cool. YMMV.
But you said that you'd only get diamonds from estates or from digging them yourself. I just wanted to point out that there are other options.
You can also get certified non-conflict, laser-etched diamonds from DeBeers, but even if I fully trusted DeBeers, I don't like them. If I'm going to go to the effort of being responsible with my diamond purchases, I'm going to go the extra mile and get a non-DeBeers diamond.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
fugu, I live in a part of the world where some people are obscenely wealthy and other people live on the subway.
Yes, I think this is a systematic problem. Consumers don't decide what a normal salary of a CEO should be; other CEO's determine that.
All consumers look at is the end price. I think we should look at how that cost is distributed.
I like the Ben and Jerry model.
edit to add: You say that they have done better since the cap was lifted. Done better for whom? Is the ice cream better? Cheaper?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:compensation is not always in the form of a salary. Also, Ben and Jerry's has done even better after the removal of that salary cap.
How they've done afterward is confounded by the company that came before (they were bought while growing their business) and basically irrelevant to your claim that they would not do very well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Also, Ben and Jerry's has done even better after the removal of that salary cap.
That depends on how you define "better."
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Has anyone mentioned the concept of "Carbon Footprints" yet? "A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide" (definition provided by the site listed below). If you're looking at a way of consuming responsibly, that is a fantastic place to start (all aspects of life, food consumption, clothing and good manufacturing, travel, etc).
http://www.carbonfootprint.com/ is a good place to begin reading if the concept sounds interesting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(Summary: when the Financial Times visited five coffee growers in Peru with Fair Trade certifications, four of them were paying growers less than the minimum required for Fair Trade certification).
I should say that I suspect the wage actually being paid the workers was probably pretty reasonable for the work, I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the misrepresentation of the product people were purchasing. The more sound information is, the stronger the economy.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If companies really do perform better without a salary cap, I'd cal that pretty dang relevant to the topic at hand.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
dkw: this is true. Of course, they were having some moderately severe ethical questions raised even before removing the cap.
But if we're raising it as an example of a business being able to make money despite not having much disparity between the highest and lowest paid workers, it isn't a very good one. One of the reasons they hired the CEO and removed the cap is that they were having a hard time managing the company in the state it was in.
edit: and are you seriously suggesting that the fact they had a salary cap over a decade ago is positively impacting profits today, MrSquicky? I can't even begin to imagine how that would work, especially given the employee turnover I know they've had. Maybe you're positing that the small number of people who are still there were only able to be hired because they had the salary cap, but don't mind working there now without the salary cap? edit again: and that the small number of people are also responsible for the significant corporate growth, disproportionately more than the other employees.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The salary multiple rule could easily be bypassed through contract labor. Many businesses already contract for menial tasks like janitorial services and shipping.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
m_p_h, you can also get Canadian diamonds that are certifiably conflict-free. I'm not sure if they're through DeBeers or not. I also don't care to give DeBeers any more of my money.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ElJay: Here Here!
----- I got my diamonds through a private business that acquires their gems from mines in Thailand. If you can get a solid guarantee that the diamonds are from there you should be gold (no pun intended). But you do have to be careful as often conflict diamonds are laundered through places like India.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
IIRC, a huge percentage of the global diamond market flows through Belgium, and that's where most of the conflict diamonds go as well.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Belgium and Holland, I think. Amsterdam in particular.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets return to the question of the CEO and the homeless on the subway for a bit.
Well, in a sense. Lets stop talking about the CEO, because he isn't the problem. The problem is the homeless person living on the subway, and the CEO has nothing to do with it. We had destitute people when the top income tax bracket was over 90% and CEO pay was far lower (though not proportional to firm size: almost all changes in top CEO pay in the past several decades can be explained by the largest companies being much larger). Making the CEO's pay half or double what it is now isn't going to change the world of the person living in the subway. The problem of the person living in the subway is not a problem of income disparity, but of social institutions (and I'm including gov't programs in that class of things).
More interesting factoids. Did you know that the countries where people are becoming better off most rapidly are also those where income disparity is rising most rapidly, and that this has been observed historically as well? Social programs that lift the less well off up tend to come after a rapid initial rise in individual health and wealth that happens more rapidly among the more well off, but still lifts the poor considerably. Also, many countries that institute programs intended to help the poor by 'evening things out' tend to still see an increase in wealth disparity, often by the poor rapidly becoming much poorer.
A recent example is Venezuela. Despite all the changes to free up markets prior to Chavez, the gini coefficient (which measures income inequality) was generally falling (along with the poverty level, though that wasn't falling nearly rapidly enough; there were inarguably rampant problems in Venezuela). Now that Chavez has taken power and is taking money from the rich to give to the poor . . . the gini coefficient is somehow rising, and poverty is as well. And this is with a big oil price boom!
If we want to actually help people, it is important to look at what has actually worked.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Diamonds are just rocks. What I love about my engagement ring isn't the sparkly that it holds, it's the fact my hubby gave it to me and in doing so said "I love you back." No one had ever done that before.
It could have been a band of gold with no diamond.
It could have been a twist tie.
It could have been nothing but words.
Diamonds are worth so much because people place an unrealistic value on them. If you really care about conflict diamonds or whatever, don't buy diamonds at all. Buying diamonds at all pulls them out of the market and raises the prices for the diamonds still there. Buy a cubic zirconia or something. As the commercial says "A cubic zirconia looks just like a real diamond!"
Or give up the notion that Rocks = Love.
In any event, guys, go outside and breath in some fresh air. There seems to be an awful lot of hand wringing on this thread and it'll tie your fingers into knots.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I vote for moissanite: similar properties to diamonds (such that they initially fooled jewellers, unlike cubic zirconia), and similar durability, plus easier to set (since they can take a much higher temperature than diamonds, and can thus be placed directly in the pouring mold).
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't buy diamonds out of the notion that rocks = love. I buy diamonds because I think they're pretty. And so far, I haven't seen a fake that I thought looked as nice. None of the diamonds I own have been given to me by anyone else, I purchased them all myself.
And I don't see hand-wringing on this thread. I see people discussing things they've thought a lot about, after someone asked for opinions. What exactly else happens every day on this discussion board?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I have been on this journey for about 15 years. It helps to think of it as a journey and acknowlegde you can't make all these choices overnight. I mostly use non disposable things- shopping bags, cloth pads, hankies, cloth diapers when we needed them. I buy fair trade coffee and chocolate,and we spend a rather large % of our money on food. Clothes- I buy second hand, except for socks and underwear. If I could afford it I'd buy sustainable sweatshop free NEW clothes. The rare new T-shirts I buy are almost always from cafepress- many of their shirts are from american apparel, which is sweat shop free.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
so I have a quick question. I've been using re-usable shopping bags for a while now. But when i get a lot of produce i'm still racking up those smaller plastic produce bags. Anyone have any good ideas as to how to avoid this, aside from just placing all the produce in my cart sans bags?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Reuse them.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My grocery store has plastic bag recycling. Really there's not a way to avoid those unless you bring your own reusable "green bags" to the store (those bags that improve the shelf life of your produce. You can wash them out and reuse them.) You'd have to check with the store first, though. Some might not allow it.
Otherwise you can do all the normal things with them you would with the other plastic bags, so they get at least more than one use.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Here ya go.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
In response to the thread in general, you can look into community supported agricultureprojects like this one. Since all the food is grown by members, we know that it's organic (although we aren't certified as such) and since the food is grown locally, it doesn't need to be packaged and transported. And of course it can't get any fresher.
We have a pickup on Tuesday and Saturday, right at the farm, and we bring our own bags, which are virtually all recycled grocery bags.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
thanks Eljay!
kq, why wouldn't a store allow you to bring your own produce bags? Also, the problem with re-using those plastic produce bags is that they're much flimsier than the other plastic bags.
That's pretty awesome Glenn. Don't know if there's anything like that around me, but it's very cool none the less.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My thought was that their scales may be zeroed to the weight of one of their bags. But once I think about it, they probably aren't going to object to you bringing bags that weigh MORE when you're paying by the ounce/lb. But still, some people who work at grocery stores are weird. It just would be a good idea to check before, I think, and most of them would allow it if you had.
Okay, thought of another one, their bags are designed so they can read product codes through them, or, in the case of meat products, scan right through the bag. If your bags aren't see-through that might be an inconvenience. Not a big one, but just a thought when figuring out a solution.
I have successfully reused the produce bags for almost every thing I reuse the other bags for. Occasionally they are not the right size or need to be doubled for that use, but sometimes their size is an advantage instead of a drawback.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I've recently gone (fairly) organic. I won't say I've made the switch totally, but my veg and much of my meat is now organic. If there's one thing that I'll promote is that you need to make sure that if you buy organic you buy CERTIFIED organic. If it doesn't have the USDA Certified Organic symbol on the packaging, buyer beware. Certified organic food is checked by the USDA and certified as being made of at least 95% organic ingredients. It does allow for up to 5% non-organic ingredients which "cannot be found commercially in organic form."
Also, always buy fair trade, shade grown organic coffee and chocolate. Coffee and chocolate were meant to be grown under the canopy in the rain forests. That's where the trees grow when left alone in the wild. However, coffee and chocolate growers soon found that the plants would grow faster in direct sunlight. The problem? Unlike under the canopy, when grown in direct sunlight the plants are extremely vulnerable to pests. The solution? Pesticides and lots of them. Organic coffee and chocolate is grown under the canopy of the rain forest where it belongs. If you are going both organic and fair trade in your coffee and chocolate, check your labels. While almost all (if not completely all) fair trade chocolate and coffee is organic, nowhere near all organic coffee and chocolate is fair trade.
Oh, and about the diamonds. There's nothing wrong with getting your sweetheart a diamond anything. Just go with estate jewelry (much of which I think is way more beautiful than the mass produced stuff of today). If your honey really doesn't like "old stuff" just make sure that your diamond is certified conflict free. Responsible jewelers won't be offended if you ask for proof, and if they are, you probably didn't want their product anyway.
*Getting off the soapbox and heading for bed.*
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: you need to make sure that if you buy organic you buy CERTIFIED organic.
I keep this in mind when buying from regular stores but don't bother when buying from small local growers. Many of the farms I buy from use organic practices but have found it outside their means (too time consuming, too much paperwork) to maintain their organic certification. It does require a certain amount of trust: e.g. I ask the seller if their practices are sustainable/ pesticide-herbicide free, and I'm not going to do the research to make sure they're not lying.
This summer we have been moving toward eating local, organic/ sustainable, cruelty-free foods. We're far from 100%, but we're making progress. And I feel really good about it. I think every little bit helps. Our produce purchases have been virtually 100% local since mid-May.
As a bonus, everything has been delicious.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:That's pretty awesome Glenn. Don't know if there's anything like that around me, but it's very cool none the less.
You could start one!
My comment about certified organic: It costs a lot of money to get certified. A lot of the early converts to organic farming haven't gone to the trouble of doing the paperwork and paying the fees. So they just continue to produce food, often more "organically" than the big commercial organic farms.
As I said, the farm project I'm involved with is not certified organic, but it's undoubtedly the most organic food I can possibly find.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
As of today there's a DeBeers ad at the bottom of the page.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I got Mrs. BB gems from a Hong Kong dealer who gets her diamonds through Thailand, from the research she has done they are conflict free. But I still have nagging doubts in the back of my mind that I could have been more certain.
I've found that if you buy a smaller diamond you have alot more money for other gems stones that compliment the diamond. I'm very happy with the setup my jeweler helped me create.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
) Or you can go through and highlight brands that fit whatever your top priorities are.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Coolness factor may or may not be impacted by how large a diamond you find.)