Catholic Charities USA seeks minimum-wage hike

[chicago]

As opposed to a Liberal democrat forum? Do we really want to break down the party agenda for each and compare them to Catholic teachings?

The problem is precisely when we start “breaking it down and comparing” rather than accepting the Church’s guidance whole cloth. There are people on both right and left who would like to explain away why they really don’t have to listen to what makes them uncomfortable in the mind of the Church.

Last I checked the Republican party was still against abortion and support LESS government involvment in our private lives.

It’s so funny that you put it that way, considering that the pro-abortion argument is to get the government out of our personal lives.

A local radio host put it well when he argued that he wished we could just all agree on abortion being wrong so that we could finally move on to talk about the other critical issues rather than getting stuck on that one.

Look, all I am saying is that each person has a choice and if they choose to get out of poverty they can, I am not against giving someone a helping hand to get started in the right direction.

There are a few problems with this assessment.

One is how we define “poverty”. Someone may be earning wages above the articfically low “poverty line” but unable to make enough to support a family.

One might well have done “all the right things” but still have trouble finding work in a competitive marketplace which pays respectable wages.

One might have a respectable job which he works hard at but gets paid little for. This work might be ultimately essential to the company, though not necessarily in the order of their primary line of work. Why ought this person have to “move up” merely to pay his own bills rather than being better respected for the importance and value of what he is there for?

 

[chicago]

Is it your opinion, then that ministering to the parish, saying mass, teaching children and so on is wortheless?

I’m not taking that position, vern. I’m noting that there are many people in the world who would (those who are rooted in the idea of “productiveness” being the key). Further, you’ll note that the example I used was not so much on the “active” ministries (where some would recognize a certain worth) as the “praying” ministries (where it is much more difficult to discern what grand ‘work’ someone is doing).

 

[chicago]

You can afford to start a business. I started mine with less than 10,000. Of course that would entail you taking a risk-better to live off somene elses business and pontificate on how they should run it.

Well, I suppose if you want to start a lemonade stand…

But not everyone has even a “mere $10,000” of cash of equity sitting around. (A low startup cost in many markets). So many people live paycheck to paycheck (and maybe even with credit cards to ‘get by’). Of course, if starting this new company entails leaving your old job to invest time in the new, there is the additional risk that you won’t be able to pay the bills at all now. Not to mention possibly going on unemployment if the venture fails (as most new businesses do). Naturally, one has to wonder what the business being started will be and whether it is not already a professional level business where the person already has the skills to go it on their own or get re-employed, if necessary. Alas, too many people have tried and lost their life savings. But if someone has no other good options after this fails, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[estesbob]

Well, I suppose if you want to start a lemonade stand…

But not everyone has even a “mere $10,000” of cash of equity sitting around. (A low startup cost in many markets). So many people live paycheck to paycheck (and maybe even with credit cards to ‘get by’). Of course, if starting this new company entails leaving your old job to invest time in the new, there is the additional risk that you won’t be able to pay the bills at all now. Not to mention possibly going on unemployment if the venture fails (as most new businesses do). Naturally, one has to wonder what the business being started will be and whether it is not already a professional level business where the person already has the skills to go it on their own or get re-employed, if necessary. Alas, too many people have tried and lost their life savings. But if someone has no other good options after this fails, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So you are unwilling to take the risk but perfectly willing to dictate how we should run our businesses to those of us who did?

 

[Nurse_Joy]

BTW The biggest reason for poverty is usually the inconsidreate way in which taxes and fees exclude not necessarily the poor, but low wage workers, from mastering even the most basic needs. In our area, for example the housing market has become a commodity, not shelter. Therefore, high costs and crippling taxes and fees have produced a steady flight of marginal workers out of their homes and neighborhoods. Taxes on wages, utilities, gasoline, and telephones; mandatory fees for water sewer, garbage and insurance, soon break the bank of anyone working for wages above the poverty line but below the true cost of living.

That’s why an earned income credit makes so much more sense than raising the minimum wage. It actually helps poor people instead of creating artificially high wages for jobs that aren’t worth it.

 

[Kendy]

As opposed to a Liberal democrat forum? Do we really want to break down the party agenda for each and compare them to Catholic teachings? Last I checked the Republican party was still against abortion and support LESS government involvment in our private lives. Look, all I am saying is that each person has a choice and if they choose to get out of poverty they can, I am not against giving someone a helping hand to get started in the right direction.

I would not prefer a liberal democrat answers forum.

 

[Kendy]

A distinction without a difference.

There’s a huge difference. That’s there is a correlation between income education does not show causality.

 

[Kendy]

Read what you just wrote – aloud – and tell me if it sounds strange to you.

Education is positively correlated with education. What you mean when you say “income is currently distributed **through **education” is impenetrable.

“We would suddenly see equal incomes?” What on earth put that idea into your head?

Income is highly correlated with education. If you want to make someone self-supporting, the best approach is to give him an education. The better his education, the more likely he is not only to be self-supporting, but to be a source of help to others.

Now do you claim we can help poor children by denying them education? Because that’s where your argument is trending.

No, that is not where my argument is treading. Of course, everyone supports providing education, but does everyone need a college degree? Is the trash collector’s work not valueable to our society?

 

[rlg94086]

What does a trash collectors’ work have to do with the minimum-wage?

No, that is not where my argument is treading. Of course, everyone supports providing education, but does everyone need a college degree? Is the trash collector’s work not valueable to our society?

 

[chicago]

So you are unwilling to take the risk but perfectly willing to dictate how we should run our businesses to those of us who did?

Well, I’m speaking more generally about the circumstances at play. Simply saying, “eh, it only takes $10 G, go for it!” doesn’t take into account the realities in most people’s lives.

As far as “dictating how we should run our businesses”, I’m not dictating at all. I’m simply citing Catholic principles which are to be adhered to. In fact, I have considered starting my own business and these are things which I have had to factor into any potential plan for the shop to suceed. So I do take them very much personally to heart.

 

[chicago]

What does a trash collectors’ work have to do with the minimum-wage?

You’re not getting it. It isn’t JUST about minimum wage workers, but the larger issue of providing a just wage for all. A minimum wage is merely a way of ensuring that we don’t fall BELOW a certain level of justice. Of course, our present minimum wage is a joke as it comes nowhere near offering personal sustainability.

In the context of what kendy noted, the constant refrain from some is “education education education”! (Though there are plenty of “educated” people out there who can’t find sustainable employ). But not all jobs require a college degree (I’d argue most really don’t - even the ones taken up by many college grads.) Not to mention the depths of debt that college gets many a man into. More menial work also deserves to be accorded with a wage upon which one can support a family.

 

[Kendy]

What does a trash collectors’ work have to do with the minimum-wage?

It has nothing to do with the minimum wage. I was trying to point out that just because someone jobs doesn’t require much education does not mean that their valuable work should be well-compensated—high school diploma or not.

 

[chicago]

That’s why an earned income credit makes so much more sense than raising the minimum wage. It actually helps poor people instead of creating artificially high wages for jobs that aren’t worth it.

While I wouldn’t agree about “artificially high wages for jobs that aren’t worth it” (where would we be WITHOUT those employees?), I would concur about the value of the earned income credit and recommend both raising the amount of credit and the ceilings on income levels which one can make to be entitled to it.

 

[Kendy]

Also, several posters have acted like it was some kind of law of economics that minimum wage raises causes increase in prices and reduction in employment. However, economists are as divided on this issue catholics and protestants are divided on sola scriptura.

The only fact is that some economists, those of libetarian leanings, believe that minimum wages hurt the economy. While economists, who believe that government should mitigate economic externalities (Yes, I know big econ words ), think that minimum wages are necessary. BTW, there are nobel prize winners on both sides of this debate. Recently, over 600 economists signed a document calling for a minimum wage hike. If you want to see the document google it. I am posting this relatively balanced article about it.

If you want to find articles by economist not supporting the minimum wage, you can. Try looking into U of Chicago econimists like Becker. Now, I could have also posted those articles as well, but that would not be self-serving, and being a good capitalist, I prefer to serve my own interests.

businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061018_940534.htm?chan=top%2Bnews_top%2Bnews%2Bindex

 

[Kendy]

I want to add that this is not so much a economic issue as it is a philosophical one. If you believe that no one person is worth millions a year no matter how hard they work because other people helped them get there, then you will look around you and see great wealth disparities (The subject of a recent homilty by pope benedict ), and you will want to do something about it. Your instinct is to call for a minimum wage hike, but of course, whether it is effective or not. No one knows.

On the other hand, if you think that what makes America great is its entrepreneural spirit and we need to encourage that by letting the markets take their natural course, then you think minimum wages are foolish. You probably also think that the markets will FAIRLY distribute wages. Are you right? No one knows.

The truth is that there are truths in both of these world views, and what we need is a balance of free market, and government regulations. Employers are not always fair, and many poor people are their own worst enemies.

It is my opinion, however, that greed rules many people in our society, and that for many in positions of economic power, there is a lack of respect for the dignity and worth of their workers. We treat people like tools, and give them as little as we have to. I find this attitude—the excessive materialism of our society and the wealth gap of our society---- immoral, and my instinct is to do something. What is the best thing to do? I am certainly not sure. But every now and then, I like to cast a stone at the system by supporting something like a minimum wage hike. I have no doubt that this goliath is much bigger than me, and will not be moved by my stone, but I still want to fling it.

Kendy

 

[hoser]

You’re not getting it. It isn’t JUST about minimum wage workers, but the larger issue of providing a just wage for all. A minimum wage is merely a way of ensuring that we don’t fall BELOW a certain level of justice. Of course, our present minimum wage is a joke as it comes nowhere near offering personal sustainability.

In the context of what kendy noted, the constant refrain from some is “education education education”! (Though there are plenty of “educated” people out there who can’t find sustainable employ). But not all jobs require a college degree (I’d argue most really don’t - even the ones taken up by many college grads.) Not to mention the depths of debt that college gets many a man into. More menial work also deserves to be accorded with a wage upon which one can support a family.

Why is the government resposible for forcing employers to provide a “just wage”? And what do you define as a “just wage”? What is a “just wage”? Is it $7.00 per hour? Yes, no? How about $10.00 per hour? Wait, if the wife stays home to care for the kids, the husband cannot support a family on only $10.00 per hour so how about $15.00 per hour, will that do? Well maybe if the family lives in a shack and they don’t buy any groceries. So lets define a “just wage” as $20.00 per hour. There that’s it, the government should force employers in this communist government of ours to pay all of their employees $20.00 per hour so that they are able to make ends meet.

What will this do to the economy? Well who cares, at least the employers have to come up with the money to pay all their employees $20.00 per hour. Never mind that many employers will go out of business due to labor costs that far excede any sales income. Never mind that those who don’t go out of business will have to make up the difference by raising prices on their products or services to the consumers. Never mind the fact that this will hurt the economy, we should be concerned about the poor individuals who are not being paid a “just wage”.

If you respond, I would like to seriously know, what do YOU define a “just wage” to be.

 

[hoser]

Also, several posters have acted like it was some kind of law of economics that minimum wage raises causes increase in prices and reduction in employment. However, economists are as divided on this issue catholics and protestants are divided on sola scriptura.

The only fact is that some economists, those of libetarian leanings, believe that minimum wages hurt the economy. While economists, who believe that government should mitigate economic externalities (Yes, I know big econ words ), think that minimum wages are necessary. BTW, there are nobel prize winners on both sides of this debate. Recently, over 600 economists signed a document calling for a minimum wage hike. If you want to see the document google it. I am posting this relatively balanced article about it.

If you want to find articles by economist not supporting the minimum wage, you can. Try looking into U of Chicago econimists like Becker. Now, I could have also posted those articles as well, but that would not be self-serving, and being a good capitalist, I prefer to serve my own interests.

businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2006/db20061018_940534.htm?chan=top%2Bnews_top%2Bnews%2Bindex

This actually means nothing to me. There are actually some economists who do not believe that tax cuts are good for the economy.

To me this is as simple as kindergarden education. If you let people keep more of the money that they earn they will have more disposable income. More disposable income is good for the economy. Why? Duh??? If there is more money floating around then there are more things being purchased and therefore helping the overall economy.

Economists are themselves self-serving. They take a stance one way or the other simply because they have prefer a political party.

 

[rlg94086]

It has nothing to do with the minimum wage. I was trying to point out that just because someone jobs doesn’t require much education does not mean that their valuable work should be well-compensated—high school diploma or not.

But that wasn’t the point being made by Vern or Bob…the point is that having better education will allow you to get a job that pays better. All jobs have a certain value. Garbage collecting has more value than working at Burger King (although both pay more than minimum wage).

The more education you have, the more options you have. You could still prefer working as a garbage collector, but there are other jobs (some which pay less than garbage collecting) that require more education.

 

[chicago]

Why is the government resposible for forcing employers to provide a “just wage”

Why is it the government’s responsibility to “force” us to do anything? Anarchy for all! Begone with those tedious laws.

And what do you define as a “just wage”? What is a “just wage”? Is it $7.00 per hour? Yes, no? How about $10.00 per hour? Wait, if the wife stays home to care for the kids, the husband cannot support a family on only $10.00 per hour so how about $15.00 per hour, will that do? Well maybe if the family lives in a shack and they don’t buy any groceries. So lets define a “just wage” as $20.00 per hour. There that’s it, the government should force employers in this communist government of ours to pay all of their employees $20.00 per hour so that they are able to make ends meet.

A government which required employers to pay even $20/hr would by no means be “communist”, unless it actually took over all means of production and centralized pay systems. It’s no different than any other regulation, really. Now, if you’re a libertarian who despises this concept as a whole, just come right out and say so.

What will this do to the economy? Well who cares, at least the employers have to come up with the money to pay all their employees $20.00 per hour. Never mind that many employers will go out of business due to labor costs that far excede any sales income. Never mind that those who don’t go out of business will have to make up the difference by raising prices on their products or services to the consumers. Never mind the fact that this will hurt the economy, we should be concerned about the poor individuals who are not being paid a “just wage”.

The human person is not made to serve the economy, the economy is to serve the human person. Let’s simply keep our priorities straight.

While I have no false pipedreams about jumping wages from say 5 to 20 bucks an hour overnight, we certainly need to do what we can (individually, or if necessary through law) to raise the bar. Will this cause changes in the economic effect somehow (maybe not as drastic as you hypothesize)? Certainly. But, then, there will ultimately be a leveling also. Such is the nature of life and economies. I do find it ironic that those who argue against a minimum wage basically tell workers “too bad; deal with it”, “find a way to make things work for you somehow”, “build yourself up”, “adapt or die”, but they can’t take it when someone suggests that businesses ought to do the same.

If you respond, I would like to seriously know, what do YOU define a “just wage” to be.

In a previous generation, the Church (in America, particularly) often spoke in favor of a “family wage” whereby a man had enough to support his wife and children, paying a sufficient amount to (as the saying went) “put pictures on the walls and carpeting on the floor”. I’d certainly support that. Bishop Sheen wrote in support of equal pay for equal work, noting the necessity of ensuring that employers would not discriminate against married persons if cheaper labor could be found among the single population. Ironically, I think that we can certainly see where the influx of women into the workforce over recent decades has created a greater demand for jobs, keeping wages down while wives often HAVE to work just to make ends meet. I don’t think it would be a bad idea for we as Catholics to re-emphasize the need for a family wage.

Minimally, I believe that a just wage would be what it takes to meet the real cost of living in a market for an individual.

 

[chicago]

If there is more money floating around then there are more things being purchased and therefore helping the overall economy.

While I’m not sure that is always going to happen (some people might, gasp, save!), I’m not convinced that this idea is a good thing. It puts our emphasis on materialism and work and achievement as the highest goods. A very Calvinistic ideology.