Ethical Shopping Means More than Comparing Price

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am always startled as to how little average people understand economics. It's a science, people.

It's as much a philosophy or religion as it is science. "Science" implies there is an theory of economics that can explain and *predict* economic phenomena, whereas all current economic theories are much better at postdiction than prediction.

[GP_Matt]

Maybe the best solution is to buy heavily from countries that have bad working conditions.
More factories will open up and with that will come a demand for workers. When the labour shortage eventually occurs the employers will be forced to improve conditions to maintain a workforce.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am always startled as to how little average people understand economics. It's a science, people.

It is not a science, no matter how much you want it to be.
Economics is as much of a science as politics. Scientific principles can be applied within the disciplines, but they both lack objectivity and consistent predictive power.

[Bonded]

One of the main argument divides on if it is a moral obligation for companies to take care of their wider footprint and communities in which they conduct their business, or if they are only responsible to their shareholders.

The legal precedent in the US is the latter.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Bonded

One of the main argument divides on if it is a moral obligation for companies to take care of their wider footprint and communities in which they conduct their business, or if they are only responsible to their shareholders.

The legal precedent in the US is the latter.

How do you draw a legal standard on the morality of taking care of a community? What does that mean? By injecting a better employment opportunity into the community have they not automatically taken care of that community? What degree of elevated action reaches the standard?

It should also be noted that acting in the interests of shareholders and the the community are not opposing forces. Companies are free to make decisions that may negatively impact share prices so long as they are informed decisions, there's no prohibition on investing in a community instead of paying out voluntary dividends.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by valo403

How do you draw a legal standard on the morality of taking care of a community? What does that mean? By injecting a better employment opportunity into the community have they not automatically taken care of that community? What degree of elevated action reaches the standard?

It should also be noted that acting in the interests of shareholders and the the community are not opposing forces. Companies are free to make decisions that may negatively impact share prices so long as they are informed decisions, there's no prohibition on investing in a community instead of paying out voluntary dividends.

I am not arguing either way. I think it is a very hard thing to define in real life and nigh impossible to enforce. Unless every country mandates minimum standards for their employees, companies will follow cheap labour. Some argue, a "race to the bottom" has occurred in countries in an attempt to secure investment that does little to benefit the whole.

It is somewhat idyllic viewpoint that companies will pay more than they have to in interest of their employees. The only vote people have is with their dollar.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Maybe the best solution is to buy heavily from countries that have bad working conditions.
More factories will open up and with that will come a demand for workers. When the labour shortage eventually occurs the employers will be forced to improve conditions to maintain a workforce.

This is actually what is happening in China. Especially in the furniture industry. Lots of companies are actually bringing work back to the US because it isn't worth it anymore to buy from China.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bonded

It is not a science, no matter how much you want it to be.
Economics is as much of a science as politics. Scientific principles can be applied within the disciplines, but they both lack objectivity and consistent predictive power.

Predictive power is generally impossible, no matter the discipline. We can create fairly objective standards though. Comparative studies tend to confirm this point.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by peter12

Predictive power is generally impossible, no matter the discipline. We can create fairly objective standards though. Comparative studies tend to confirm this point.

Also lacks control of variables, and cannot successfully conform to the scientific method, at best a soft science.