Poultry Workers in Diapers as Bathroom Breaks Denied, Oxfam Says

Whole Foods provides ratings on its meat[1] -- but instead of $5 for an entire chicken from Safeway, it's more like $7/lb for boneless/skinless breasts at Whole Foods. It turns out that social responsibility is expensive.

[1] - https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/animal-welfa...

None of those 3 examples are commodities.

Hence the sad world we live in with ever decreasing wages ;(

Funny how animal welfare activists, environmentalists opposed to factory farming, and minimum wage increase labor reformers should all be working together on this. I would've never thought of that coalition.

Redistribution of wealth faces the problem of fleeing capital from your country.

Remember that the global elite (people who control the vast majority of the capital) is highly mobile and from their perspective there's no difference between being robbed and having their wealth "redistributed".

It should also be taken into account that even if the wealth was redistributed, each poor person would only receive a minute amount, for example let's say 1 share of Google, Amazon and a few more shares.

They would almost immediately have to sell this wealth to transform it into income for current needs.

Cheap food isn't necessarily bad food.

Luxury food isn't necessarily good food.

No matter the political climate, or income inequality. People need to eat. The idea of cheap food is to completely remove it from the spectrum of politics.

Your full dinner should never be subject to political whims. It should be a constant.

well the effect I heard is that even people who don't buy the chicken (ever, they just aren't chicken buyers) buy more of everything else due to the smell. So the store doesn't need to sell any at all, it just needs to be there. Though come to think of it this actually wouldn't affect price (because that smell effect would hold true if it's too expensive, right?) so perhaps it's a combination of both your effect (which affects chicken buyers) and the one I heard about (which affects non-buyers).

Most of them simply don't have chicken at all. There are roughly 800 million people who don't have adequate access to food.

It doesn't seem like it if you like in a developed country, but for over 10% of the people in the world, the price of food actually is of extreme importance.

This is the natural order of human nature. But it turns out that when you let people profit off of the productive capital they own, they end up investing a significant portion of their income into creating new capital.

This process of profit motivated investment leads to an increase in goods/services being generated per capita, and consequently, less need for manual labour, more leisure time, and a higher standard of living, for the masses:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...

>Almost unnoticed, the world has reduced poverty, increased incomes, and improved health more than at any time in history.

^ improvements in the standard of living is the natural order of the world and even more so when there is a free market in place, as historical cross-country comparisons show us.

These attempts at making edgy anti-capitalism comments, which essentially imply that we should impose authoritarian prohibitions, that abridge the right to private property and engagement in voluntary market transaction, are embarrassing.

It's the natural order of regulated capitalism, the regulations just enforce a floor. The incentive to get as low as possible is still there- companies will push edge cases that aren't regulated until someone notices and builds a floor under that, too.

I should say, it's the natural order of regulated capitalism in the absence of strong unions. If you have unions they can push back against crappy working conditions on their own, with only nominal government backing (ie laws that encourage and legitimize unions).