Comments on: Peru, fair trade coffee, and minimum wage

By: Siel

Siel — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:55:52 +0000

Like I tell my students, think “reader-centric,” not writer-centric, when writing stuff :)

Anyway, the fallout from the Financial Times article’s continuing — I’ll do another post on it soon –

By: simon

simon — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:40:26 +0000

I was offering an alternative explanation. The assumetion in the post was the market. I just pointed out that maybe they don’t want to.

Then my “automatically assuming that they wouldnâ€™t” was in referance to the burying their heads in the sand.

Made sense to me in my twisted dyslexic Irish way anyway. :).

By: Siel

Siel — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:03:41 +0000

And what I’m trying to say is that none of this comes across in your “maybe like most businesses in these countries they donâ€™t want to?” comment.

By: simon

simon — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:37:57 +0000

Basically what I was trying to get at is that the Fair trade movment may be to quick to judge the lack of wages due to poor market condidtions.

That maybe workers are being exploited and the checking mechanism that the Fair trade people use to make sure that standards are being meet are not adequate.

And by simply presumming that the reason is the market, they are burying their heads in the sand on the issue.

By: Siel

Siel — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:34:49 +0000

simon — I did say that max could’ve made his request less sarcastically, and yes, I agree he stretches what you said a bit — though I’m not sure your pessimistically speculative question added much to the discussion. In any case, you both tend to leave unnecessarily contentious and reactive comments, so I guess it’s not surprising you’ve ticked each other off.

By: simon

simon — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:33:37 +0000

Yes I did read the post and the articles. But it would be nice for the same curtasey being extended to me.

If you read my post you will note the word “maybe” now in his reply max said “automatically assumes” which is two different points entirely.

Maybe suggests that maybe they are not getting enough money to pay wages or maybe they don’t want to pay wages. I am not niave enough to believe that everyone using the fair trade logo has the same aims as the yourself and the fair trade association.

Yet max believes that as I questioned the point that I automatically think everyone is exploting people. How is that for reading what people say?

By: Siel

Siel — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:42:52 +0000

simon — I don’t think that asking that you read the post and the articles in question before spouting kneejerk reactions is an unreasonable request — especially as you have a tendency to do that on this blog. Of course, max could’ve made the request in a less sarcastic manner himself. Still, responding to that request with another kneejerk, inflammatory Q is just silly.

By: simon

simon — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:24:17 +0000

i guess itâ€™s easier to come up with simple explanations like yours-which automatically assumes that fair trade certified co-ops are out to exploit peopleâ€¦ Aren’t you automatically assuming that they wouldn’t?

By: max inabaar

max inabaar — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 11:32:28 +0000

wrong simon. have you read the entire article? or all of FLO’s response or even that of the UK’s fair trade foundation? i guess it’s easier to come up with simple explanations like yours-which automatically assumes that fair trade certified co-ops are out to exploit people…

By: simon

simon — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:58:33 +0000

Thus, the co-ops donâ€™t make enough moolah to pay their workers â€” or even themselves â€” fair wages. maybe like most businesses in these countries they don’t want to ?