Original practice question
Some people think shoppers should pay more for food so that farm workers earn a living wage. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
- 1
Position
Agree that the wage should be livable, and disagree that the only tool is a higher shelf price paid by every shopper, including those who already skip meals to buy the cheap range.
- 2
Body paragraph 1
- Point
- A price that cannot cover a living wage is a wage subsidy paid by the picker, not a bargain discovered by the shopper.
- Explanation
- Someone absorbs the gap. If the contract pushes it down the chain, the absorber is the person on the piece rate, who cannot buy the food they picked. A price that includes the wage is the honest label. Pretending the cheap tin is efficient hides the subsidy.
- Example
- A piece rate that required a full day of picking to reach an ordinary day’s pay, while the tin stayed on the bottom shelf as a "value" line.
- 3
Body paragraph 2
- Point
- Raising every shelf price, and doing nothing else, taxes the shopper who buys the value line because the rent left nothing over.
- Explanation
- The extent of disagreement is about the instrument. A buyer at the top of the market can pay. A household on the value line cannot be the only funder. A wage floor enforced on the contract, plus a targeted credit for low-income shoppers, lands the cost nearer the firms and the shoppers who can carry it.
- Example
- A contract rule that banned sub-living piece rates, funded partly by a smaller margin on premium ranges rather than by the cheapest loaf alone.
- 4
Conclusion
Pay the picker a living wage through the contract. Do not fund it solely by raising the only tin a poor shopper buys.