As catholics should we believe in the efficacy or/and justice of min. wage?

[human_being]

You are correct. There is a difference between the socialist law, the minimum wage law, and a living wage, a Christian idea.

Labor is an economic resource. The laborer wants the most money that he can get and the employer wants to get labor for the least amount of money. We go through cycles of labor shortage and labor surplus, just as any other economic resource.

My point is that socialists do not believe in the freedom of individuals to negotiate wages. Socialists force us into the minimum wage laws.

At one time I had 45 employees. Today I have 0 employees. I just do not relish the idea of paying the government for the privilege of hiring employees! Business was more profitable and more simple before we hired those 45 employees!

I have to pay for the privelidge to work in the town I do…it used to be about $10 now it’s over $50…

 

[human_being]

You are correct. There is a difference between the socialist law, the minimum wage law, and a living wage, a Christian idea.

Labor is an economic resource. The laborer wants the most money that he can get and the employer wants to get labor for the least amount of money. We go through cycles of labor shortage and labor surplus, just as any other economic resource.

My point is that socialists do not believe in the freedom of individuals to negotiate wages. Socialists force us into the minimum wage laws.

At one time I had 45 employees. Today I have 0 employees. I just do not relish the idea of paying the government for the privilege of hiring employees! Business was more profitable and more simple before we hired those 45 employees!

I have to pay for the privelidge to work in the town I do…it used to be about $10 now it’s over $50… so the idea that somebody supplied earlier that employers would probably pay more if there was no minimum wage is out the window on this one…

 

[CPA2]

At what wage rate would you switch back to people?

I do not want the government as my 'partner." Therefore, there is no wage where I would hire back those 45 employees. ** I do not want to pay government for the privilege of hiring employees. ** The government would have to roll back all of the socialist legislation since 1930 and FDR before I would get interested in hiring employees.

The role of the government is an umpire. Thomas Jefferson supported this idea, and it is embedded in our laws going all the way back to 1775 (e.g. Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions).

The IRS, Social Services (SS), and all the “alphabet police” incorporate another idea, the idea that government is a participant. There is no Constitutional justification for this idea, as far as I can see. Additionally, government bureaucracies violate another intent of the Founding Fathers, the separation of powers. For example, Congress gives the IRS very broad powers to make law (legislative). The IRS has the power to go out to find the people who break “the law” (executive). Additionally, the IRS has the power to judge a taxpayer guilty (judicial).

 

[TenBobNote]

I do not want the government as my 'partner." Therefore, there is no wage where I would hire back those 45 employees. ** I do not want to pay government for the privilege of hiring employees. ** The government would have to roll back all of the socialist legislation since 1930 and FDR before I would get interested in hiring employees.

The role of the government is an umpire. Thomas Jefferson supported this idea, and it is embedded in our laws going all the way back to 1775 (e.g. Virginia and Massachusetts Constitutions).

The IRS, Social Services (SS), and all the “alphabet police” incorporate another idea, the idea that government is a participant. There is no Constitutional justification for this idea, as far as I can see. Additionally, government bureaucracies violate another intent of the Founding Fathers, the separation of powers. For example, Congress gives the IRS very broad powers to make law (legislative). The IRS has the power to go out to find the people who break “the law” (executive). Additionally, the IRS has the power to judge a taxpayer guilty (judicial).

In 1920 there was a very bad outlook on the economy, even worse then in 1929(the start of the great depression, lasting a decade). This 1920 depression had something different then the one 1929, it had a flexible pay scale. Employers, hurting and in desperate need for business were able to pay their employees less, thus offering a cheaper product, thus creating more consumers. Not only that but the employees, instead of making nothing because the minimum wage was too high, were able to work, and at least make something. This depression was over in one year. This all changed in 1929, the labor union along with the government maintained high wages to “safely guard the little guy’s wage”, this did not work however, because as a result hardly any one had any wage.

The flexible income helped save the economy, it stimulated it in a way that allocated the funds into necessary areas instead of government guesses. The goods were cheap when they needed to be cheap and quickly pulled this country out of a depression, all by its self! Imagine that… no government interference…

 

[Abu]

TenBobNote
This 1920 depression was over in one year.

Yes, you make a good point. The U.S. endured a terrible depression in 1920-21. The federal budget was cut in half, and the Fed was largely passive. The result was the beginning of recovery by the summer of 1921. “The National Industrial Conference Board reported that, while during the 1920–1921 depression, wage rates fell by 19 percent in one year, the high-wage theory had taken hold from then on.”
lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard184.html

Upon taking office, Harding inherited an economy that was reeling from dislocations caused by World War I. In a few months, wholesale prices collapsed by more than 40 percent. Production plunged over 20 percent. Unemployment zoomed from under 3 percent to over 11 percent. 1920-21 saw the most rapid, severe economic downturn our country has ever experienced.”

In We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again, adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College – Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson – points out that President Harding’s “response was to restrain government and let the free market make the necessary adjustments. He didn’t ‘do nothing,’ as President Obama implied when touting his ‘stimulus’ plan; rather, he cut taxes and slashed federal spending 10-20 percent per year. Prices were allowed to fall, supply and demand readjusted, and by 1922 the depression was over. During the next few years, unemployment dove while production soared 60 percent. Harding presided over one of the greatest economic success stories in American history.”
[By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson, August 12, 2009:

We Could Use a Man Like Warren Harding Again

The popular 1970s television series “All in the Family” had a cute theme-song sung by Archie and Edith at the beginning of every episode. One lyric was: “Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.” Well, the show … Continue reading

www.faithandfreedom.com

Tuesday, July 28, 2009
By Dr. Shawn Ritenour
Various empirical studies since the 1970s have shown that a 10-percent increase in the minimum wage results in a general drop in employment of between 2-3 percent and an 8.5-percent decrease for high-school dropouts, young black adults, and teenagers; those are the labor sectors most affected by minimum-wage increases. Teen employment fell 5 percent after last summer’s 12-percent minimum-wage increase. The 2007 minimum-wage mandate was implemented in three phases. Since going into effect, over 480,000 teen jobs have been lost
mensnewsdaily.com/2009/07/28/the-minimum-wage-keeping-prosperity-around-the-corner/

Dr. Shawn Ritenour is an associate professor of economics at Grove City College, contributor to The Center for Vision & Values, and adjunct professor at the Mises Institute in Auburn, AL.

 

[CPA2]

In 1920 there was a very bad outlook on the economy, even worse then in 1929(the start of the great depression, lasting a decade). This 1920 depression had something different then the one 1929, it had a flexible pay scale. Employers, hurting and in desperate need for business were able to pay their employees less, thus offering a cheaper product, thus creating more consumers. Not only that but the employees, instead of making nothing because the minimum wage was too high, were able to work, and at least make something. This depression was over in one year. This all changed in 1929, the labor union along with the government maintained high wages to “safely guard the little guy’s wage”, this did not work however, because as a result hardly any one had any wage.

The flexible income helped save the economy, it stimulated it in a way that allocated the funds into necessary areas instead of government guesses. The goods were cheap when they needed to be cheap and quickly pulled this country out of a depression, all by its self! Imagine that… no government interference…

You make a very good point about the inflexibility and rigidity of government. Only free men have the flexibility to solve problems.

Analyze, choose, communicate, interpret, understand and research do sound like they came out of an army manual. (I remember move and communicate from my ROTC days.)

I do agree that flexibility is the greatest asset that we small guys possess. We are forever going over, around and under obstacles the government puts in our way. When we fail our businesses get smaller. When the government fails, their bureaucracy gets larger. Additionally, government is not required to be flexible. Life is not fair!

 

[stinkcat_14]

I do not want the government as my 'partner." Therefore, there is no wage where I would hire back those 45 employees. ** I do not want to pay government for the privilege of hiring employees. ** The government would have to roll back all of the socialist legislation since 1930 and FDR before I would get interested in hiring employees.

To act in such a way is certainly your perogative, but it is not necessarily the behavior of a rational economic actor. A rational businessperson would hire a worker as long as the marginal revenue product of that worker was greater than the wage rate.

On the other hand, you still have to pay the government for the privilege of working yourself, so given your moral crusade against the government being your partner, why do you even work at all?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

28 June 1919 was the date of the economic change. Was that when minimum wage was enacted, does it matter?

Did Harding really consider spending during the post war years at the war levels? Does that even make sense? Or is shutting down a war being represented as a non war issue.