Catholic Charities USA seeks minimum-wage hike

[Texas_Roofer]

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

Hi Kendy
May I expand on your post?
The economists against minimum wage increases are called supply side economists. The supply is business transactions which have a straight forward equation P=MC which is price equal marginal cost. So if a hamburger stand is 60% wage then and increase in wage will increase marginal cost. So a $0.99 hamburger would become a $1.06 hamburger if all things remained equal. The stand would then refuse to sell below $1.06. That is the fundamental philosophy behind wages and supply side economists. However many economist are highly ethical thus some maybe on the list you cite ( I will read it later). Other economists as Macro Economist show practically every study of minimum wage increases show overall economic increase in the U.S.!!! This is why some supply siders may sign the list. Yes, it seems to be true but economic theory predicts this. It is just not popular economic theory. See in supply side it is you against the competition; however in the real world it is you and the customer together. If your price is too high the customer may lose his love for you or simply be forced to save money by using another. So if 20% of your customers are minimum wage workers and the inflation reduction in minimum wage forces them out of being customers then the wage increase brings some of them back. So*** the real affect of a minimum wage increase is to increase buying power on the lower end of the wage scale.*** Now for those confused about a variety of popular sound bites - How much then? Minimum wage must be noticeably below median wage(average is always higher) typically at least 1.5-2 deviations*. This causes inflation? No inflation is a very different issue involving money supply. This causes less jobs? No, again in supply-side economic models jobs reduce, in actual practice jobs increase from the increased buying power. Will this eliminate or increase the poor? Poor is a definition as the lowest 10% so no change will ever occur!

• hard to do as the minimum wage interfere with the measurement

 

[mvinca]

Rich people need poor people in order to stay rich.

As an American, I don’t believe that. I might say that greedy rich people need poor people to stay rich. But that isn’t the same as rich people. I realize you don’t believe this, but I do believe anyone can suceed in this country if they work hard at it. And they don’t have to step on other people’s shoulders to do it either.

However, economists are as divided on this issue [as] catholics and protestants are divided on sola scriptura.

Good analogy since Protestants happen to be wrong on that issue while Catholics happen to be right.

 

[Jennifer_G]

The minimum wage has done wonderful things for us:

1. It has helped fuel inflation.
2. It has abolished some jobs altogether – jobs that simply aren’t economically worth the cost of hiring someone to do them.
3. It has driven many jobs overseas.
4. It has helped fuel the enormous labor Black Market in this country.
5. It has blocked the poorest, least educated people from entering the economic mainstream.

I probably need an ““Economics for Dummies” For Dummies” books if you get what I mean, but I would think that raising the minimum wage would simply give people more buying power. If companies are so worried about losing money, then take some of that money from the already rich CEOs and executives that are making $100,000+ a year.

In fact, if it were me, I’d do this -

• Cap off the maximum income at $50,000-$100,000 (adjustable with inflation) with a fixed hourly wage for that salary (i.e., $25 an hour tops). That means atheletes, movie starts, lawyers, congress, etc. won’t even get anywhere close to the $200 million dollars that they love to splurge on mansions in the middle of nowhere, gaudy diamond jewerly.
• Fine corporations heavily that hire more than 30% of their labor overseas.
• With all of the extra money saved from not being wasted on (b/m)illionaires (who’s jobs aren’t as important as say, the President, or a doctor, etc.), that can go to schools, financial assistance programs for citizens (even small businesses that might be struggling), etc.
• Encourage competition by bringing back the “mom and pop stores”.

Of course, I have no idea about economics, but this is my best stab at it.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Jennifer,

I know your heart is in the right place, but here are a few things to think about.

1. I know $50-100k per year probably sounds like a lot, but it’s not…depending on where one lives.
2. Taking away incentive destroys an economy. If the possibility of making more money does not exist, people won’t choose to excel. Why should they? They also won’t invest their money into a business which creates jobs.
3. You could fine companies for going overseas, but you would also have to tax goods coming from overseas companies. These two actions would increase prices for the consumer…which means they need to make more money.

Anyway, here’s the link to the book you mentioned.
amazon.com/Economics-Dummies-Sean-Masaki-Flynn/dp/0764557262/sr=8-1/qid=1168657494/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-7707576-3550335?ie=UTF8&s=books

I probably need an ““Economics for Dummies” For Dummies” books if you get what I mean, but I would think that raising the minimum wage would simply give people more buying power. If companies are so worried about losing money, then take some of that money from the already rich CEOs and executives that are making $100,000+ a year.

In fact, if it were me, I’d do this -

• Cap off the maximum income at $50,000-$100,000 (adjustable with inflation) with a fixed hourly wage for that salary (i.e., $25 an hour tops). That means atheletes, movie starts, lawyers, congress, etc. won’t even get anywhere close to the $200 million dollars that they love to splurge on mansions in the middle of nowhere, gaudy diamond jewerly.
• Fine corporations heavily that hire more than 30% of their labor overseas.
• With all of the extra money saved from not being wasted on (b/m)illionaires (who’s jobs aren’t as important as say, the President, or a doctor, etc.), that can go to schools, financial assistance programs for citizens (even small businesses that might be struggling), etc.
• Encourage competition by bringing back the “mom and pop stores”.

Of course, I have no idea about economics, but this is my best stab at it.

 

[hoser]

"Well, Duh? " This is just laughable. The only problem here is that some are going to walk away treating like fact what experts know is a very debatable. I know this from good authority since I have had the chance to go school with the university that has the most lobel prize winners in econ in the world. Now, if you prefer libertarian economists, that’s your pergogative, but don’t act like the issue is settled because it’s not.

Kendy

Uh, I like economists that make sense.

 

[jman507]

Does anyone know the demographics of those who make minimum wage?

 

[hoser]

It is actually more than just more money in the economy. Tax cuts also increase tax revenue. When Regan reduced the taxes from 70% to 50% to 28%, the tax revenue into the governement actually went up. Why? Because at 70% there was absolutely no incentive to make money. At 28%, alot more people are willing to go into business and make money, causing more money to flow into the governement.

That is exactly true. The thing is this has been proven over and over and over again. This was proven not only when Reagan cut taxes, this was proven when JFK cuts taxes (yes a democrat cut taxes), and this is being proven again now when President Bush cut taxes.

For those of you who just insist that this type of economics don’t work all you have to do is look at history when it’s tried. Case closed.

 

[iserve]

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

The only just wages the government provides are the ones they vote to give themselves! The earned income rebate is good, but it doesn’t factor in even half of the many hidden local taxes and fees that are breaking the backs of the working classes. Some of these, such as sales taxes, water and sewer taxes and even the $150. a year in taxes on residential phones (without extras) all these are not deductable but eat away at the 2% raises that these workers get.
Another hidden problem is what happens to the morale of these people. I work in a prison with convicted felons, most of whom come from the working poor and poverty stricken neighborhoods. Even I, who work all week often end up with only $5.that I must make last for two weeks, how can I tell them that they can earn their way in the world when they get out? We all know the chances of this are really slim. It is the resulting discouragement and disgust that feed the hatred necessary to commit crimes.against society. Our jails are full of people who have given up on suffering the miseries of the working classes. Mnay of them have nowhere to go any more, as the commodity hunters are buying up every hovel available to turn it into real-estate gold. God help us all if this siuation continues to erode the fabric of working class neighborhoods and towns…

 

[chicago]

An opinion that would change, I suspect, if you actually had to depend on your own business to provide for your livilihod.

So you’re worried about your own survival should you not make enough from your line of work? Sounds like you have more in common with low wage workers than you realize!

The Church has absolutely no stand on the minimum wage.

The Church has a clear stand on just wages.

I am always amazed how us businessmen are made out to be the bad guys in these discussion. I provide the livilihood for 13 other people in two States. How about you?

YOU provide their livlihoods? You just said that THEY provide yours!

And I’m not calling anyone a “bad guy”, simply speaking about the objective standards of justice on which the Church teaches.

 

[chicago]

1. Taking away incentive destroys an economy. If the possibility of making more money does not exist, people won’t choose to excel. Why should they? They also won’t invest their money into a business which creates jobs.

This might be a good thing, which wouldn’t necessarily “destroy” an economy; though it might change our perspectives for the better… encouraging people to pursue their lines of work and industry for better reasons than the bottom line.

 

[rlg94086]

This might be a good thing, which wouldn’t necessarily “destroy” an economy; though it might change our perspectives for the better… encouraging people to pursue their lines of work and industry for better reasons than the bottom line.

Good luck on that…

I’m sure a lot of people would choose to start a business managing portable toilets for better reasons than the bottom line.

 

[chicago]

Good luck on that…

I’m sure a lot of people would choose to start a business managing portable toilets for better reasons than the bottom line.

Certainly, they would. For the same sort of reason that Chicago developed alleys some 100 years ago. Was there a direct economic benefit from it initially? No. (In fact, it entailed cost). But people did want a better place to put the smelly trash than on their front lawns. The overall effect was a better standard of living and higher property values, in the long run. But that wasn’t the primary purpose of alley building. It was just so they could get rid of that garbage. Same would happen with portable toilets. Somebody would do it because it simply had to be done.

 

[mvinca]

That is exactly true. The thing is this has been proven over and over and over again. This was proven not only when Reagan cut taxes, this was proven when JFK cuts taxes (yes a democrat cut taxes), and this is being proven again now when President Bush cut taxes.

Now all we need is for the government to stop spending that extra income (in both parities) when it comes in. I think that is why some people don’t think it works, because we tend to match our increase in revenue with an increase in spending and then it all comes out in the wash.

Of course, this doesn’t change the fact that there is an increase in tax revenue.

 

[rlg94086]

Are you saying that some industrious Chicagoans created alleys on their own 100 years ago? Or are you saying they did it as a community through their city government?

Certainly, they would. For the same sort of reason that Chicago developed alleys some 100 years ago. Was there a direct economic benefit from it initially? No. (In fact, it entailed cost). But people did want a better place to put the smelly trash than on their front lawns. The overall effect was a better standard of living and higher property values, in the long run. But that wasn’t the primary purpose of alley building. It was just so they could get rid of that garbage. Same would happen with portable toilets. Somebody would do it because it simply had to be done.

 

[chicago]

Are you saying that some industrious Chicagoans created alleys on their own 100 years ago? Or are you saying they did it as a community through their city government?

Realistically, I think it was a little of both.

 

[rlg94086]

Realistically, I think it was a little of both.

Well, you see, most portable toilet businesses are started because an enterprising businessman sees a need for them (construction sites, events, etc.) and creates a business to fill that need. It is a dirty business, but it makes money. That’s why it starts. I prefer that to having stuff that no one really has a “calling” to do - handling sewage, cleaning up after horses at a parade, etc. - managed by the government.

You apparently don’t like free enterprise at all…

 

[Kendy]

Hi Kendy
May I expand on your post?
The economists against minimum wage increases are called supply side economists. The supply is business transactions which have a straight forward equation P=MC which is price equal marginal cost. So if a hamburger stand is 60% wage then and increase in wage will increase marginal cost. So a $0.99 hamburger would become a $1.06 hamburger if all things remained equal. The stand would then refuse to sell below $1.06. That is the fundamental philosophy behind wages and supply side economists. However many economist are highly ethical thus some maybe on the list you cite ( I will read it later). Other economists as Macro Economist show practically every study of minimum wage increases show overall economic increase in the U.S.!!! This is why some supply siders may sign the list. Yes, it seems to be true but economic theory predicts this. It is just not popular economic theory. See in supply side it is you against the competition; however in the real world it is you and the customer together. If your price is too high the customer may lose his love for you or simply be forced to save money by using another. So if 20% of your customers are minimum wage workers and the inflation reduction in minimum wage forces them out of being customers then the wage increase brings some of them back. So*** the real affect of a minimum wage increase is to increase buying power on the lower end of the wage scale.*** Now for those confused about a variety of popular sound bites - How much then? Minimum wage must be noticeably below median wage(average is always higher) typically at least 1.5-2 deviations*. This causes inflation? No inflation is a very different issue involving money supply. This causes less jobs? No, again in supply-side economic models jobs reduce, in actual practice jobs increase from the increased buying power. Will this eliminate or increase the poor? Poor is a definition as the lowest 10% so no change will ever occur!

• hard to do as the minimum wage interfere with the measurement

Well, put. Thanks.

 

[Kendy]

As an American, I don’t believe that. I might say that greedy rich people need poor people to stay rich. But that isn’t the same as rich people. I realize you don’t believe this, but I do believe anyone can suceed in this country if they work hard at it. And they don’t have to step on other people’s shoulders to do it either.

Good analogy since Protestants happen to be wrong on that issue while Catholics happen to be right.

First of all, I am sorry that’s all you got out of my post. Second, we are really not talking about infallible issues here. We are talking about different ways of looking at data.

 

[chicago]

I prefer that to having stuff that no one really has a “calling” to do - handling sewage, cleaning up after horses at a parade, etc. - managed by the government.

Excuse me, but how do you know that no one has a “calling” to do it? And what’s to say that an “enterprizing businessman” would not take up the task, anyway?

You apparently don’t like free enterprise at all…

I’m all for free enterprize. I simply am not for the Calvinistic ideology of “protestant work ethic” underlying all. Alas, as Cardinal George notes, as Americans we are all (even Catholics) infected by this disease, so much a part of our ingrained culture it is.

 

[Kendy]

Uh, I like economists that make sense.

Well, obviously, I prefer those illogical economist.