Well, how much is the “someone else” making? Can they afford to pay the workers more if they cut back on their own “profit taking”? Or are they just scraping by, themselves.
Give you the investment dollars?!?!
What’s this got to do with your obligation to hire and pay workers?
I call. Quote me where I said “give em more and they ought to spend more.”
Same here. Let’s start with you accepting the same responsibility you want to put on other people – hire **your **share of workers and pay them a living wage.
What part of the Catechism says people who are too lazy to start a business and build it up get to pose as morally superior to people who are energetic, risk-taking and hard-working?
You didn’t challenge them to start a business. I’m just asking you to put your money where your mouth is, that’s all.
I never made such a claim. Only said that if one DOES hire them that the employer has an obligation to pay a just wage. If one is trying to make money through someone else’s labor, the laborer has first dibbs on a fair return. For without the laborer, the investor would have not that profit.
You’re essentially arguing a supply side economics, no?
Great. Mission accomplished. We’ll hypothetically say my share is, therefore, defined as zero. And they are paid accordingly. I only ask the same of those whose share is greater.
To those radical proponents of the minimum wage, I say, “Have at it.”
Again, circular argumentation. You’re trying to define things by your own narrow preconceived scanario, then asking that “proof to the opposite” be given in this fight against a paper tiger. It’s like the bible thumpers who insist, “Show me where it says you can worship Mary in the Bible?”
You got it. They couldn’t save money because they couldn’t get a job because ROI payback on the new robot just went down to 18 months.
This may be true. But, then, somebody’s gotta do them. What if everyone decided that they wouldn’t sweep up the floor or empty the trash or do any number of seeminly menial but necessary tasks? How much would they be “worth” then?
[2432](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2432.htm’)
Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations.218*** They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits. Profits are necessary, however. They make possible the investments that ensure the future of a business and they guarantee employment. ***
Also note, the Catechism does not list this as a responsibility of the state:[2434](javascript
All emphasis’ are mine…[2431](javascript
That’s right. The people who do those jobs don’t need to earn a living wage doing them.
And you said that without blushing.
What “step up” did “so many others” get?
So how are you exempt from the rules you want to make for others? Who said you get off scott-free?
No.
Then everyone else’s share is zero, too.
But when a person IS working to support a family of 4, he ought to be able. I’d disagree that the people who do low paying (whether it be minimum or slightly beyond that) jobs don’t need to earn a living wage. Many do.
So the proper policy to support the “many” (most of whom are starting at the beginning on their way to better things and will be living in poverty 2 years or less) is to raise the wage for all.
If his work doesn’t add enough value to the business, they can’t afford to pay him more – it’s that simple. And that’s why I challenged you to start your own business – that you might have an epiphany on the way to the Bankruptcy Court.
If his work doesn’t add enough value to the business, they can’t afford to pay him more – it’s that simple. And that’s why I challenged you to start your own business – that you might have an epiphany on the way to the Bankruptcy Court.
You realize also that a family is an** obligation**, not a right? Before one starts a family, one should be sure one is able to support that family.
I’m content to “get by” on my hard work without necessarily “getting ahead”, thank you very much. I’m a Catholic, not a Calvinist, so I feel no need to “proove my worth” of chosenness.And you said that without blushing.
I have to admire your chutzpah!
The challenge was for you to put your money where your mouth is. You didn’t give me a penny to start my business, and I don’t owe you any to start up yours. Get youir startup money like everyone else does – raid your IRA, take out a second mortage on your house, and drain your bank account.
Not everyone borrows. Some just have or are given. They invest from their excess or the opportunity they are offerred. Others essentially inherit.
And I applaud you for that. I must also say that you were blessed to have had the opportunity to be able to borrow against such hard resources. Not everyone is so fortunate.
The only rule I reiterate (it is not of my making but from the natural law, I fear) is that those who do choose to employ others compensate them justly in accord with their dignity as persons. I’m in no way exempt from that rule. If my business plan says that I can’t make it work while doing that, then I ought not start a business.
Well, there is merit in investing one’s time and resources in other ways.
I claim no moral superiority. I only offer expoundment upon Church teaching.
Yes. (just to be contrary to vern)
Fair enough. Now we’re back to being good old independent contactors. I like it! How’s about I sing you a song for a loaf of bread?